Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Gentry counts table ELCORAZO site has different data structure than all other sites #217

Closed
dmcglinn opened this issue Oct 6, 2014 · 1 comment
Labels

Comments

@dmcglinn
Copy link
Member

@dmcglinn dmcglinn commented Oct 6, 2014

This issue was imported from #185 (comment) via @ethanwhite

In the counts table of the Gentry dataset the site with site_code ELCORAZO has a different data structure than the other sites. Specifically, it stores one stem/row with count=1 instead of one species-transect combo/row with a count of the number of individuals. This means two things:

  1. Most problematic, if there are any instances of multiple-stems/individual then we lack reliable counts of individuals for this site. We only have information on the number of stems. Dan McGlinn checked the data book and did not find any multiple stems at this site so this may be a non-issue in theory.
  2. It's possible that some query's will get tripped up by this site. Most of the queries I can think of should be OK, because typically one would either sum over transects to get species-level counts for the site (which should work fine with the current structure) or work at the transect level in which case this site would get nulled-out anyway, but I am still a bit concerned about including this differently structured data. We could probably clean this up if my first point turns out not to be an issue, but I'd be curious to hear folks thinking on what that should look like (since we don't have transect information).
@dmcglinn dmcglinn added the Dataset Bug label Oct 6, 2014
@ethanwhite
Copy link
Member

@ethanwhite ethanwhite commented Feb 12, 2018

Given the lack of interaction from the data providers I'm not sure that any cleanup here will reach the top of our To Do list, so I'm going to go ahead and close this. If someone working with Gentry wants to do some more work here it would be welcome. Feel free to reopen.

@ethanwhite ethanwhite closed this Feb 12, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.