Suggestion for making mandatory noting of shoot location and date data (especially important for the primary identification)

Vasily, in order to have a better understanding, I'd like to note that some photos are not uploaded by their authors, but I post those with photographers' permission. That may be the cases when location data lack.
As for the recent Alexey Gnilenkov's photos (which are this very case), so most of them were shot in Moscow region or Laos.
Therewith the appeal to authors to note the location keeps in force, though there will be no special upload restrictions to make it not possible to add photos without location noted, since we don't have plenty of pics in the gallery, and such restrictions will restrain growth. Still, it's easier to add the location to existing image than reupload it.

Right, so what I identified yesterday may be moved, I see no variants. Tomorrow I'll be at home (with good connection), will look through more.

Totally support Vasily's call, it's a must. Otherwise the website soon will become 101st picture gallery with nice photos.
Petr, do you really think there is not plenty of pics? :) I wouldn't say that. Remember what Vladimir Ilyich (Lenin) said. ;)

Me too, I'm for the proper filling of the "Caught/shot location" field. If it's technically possible, this could be expanded with subfields "Country", "Region", "Nearest inhabited locality", and at least the two first must be mandatory.

As for the lists and choosing location, I sadly still haven't integrated Google Maps to make it possible. As it's done, the location feature will take off.
As for the main question, let's see the numbers. Now there are 737 photos of undetermined species on the website (see the Gallery), out of which 49 have no location noted http://lepidoptera.ru/gallery?prec=8&nogeo=1, and 34 out of 49 are ones of Aleksey Gnilenkov that were uploaded, I repeat, by me, not him. As I said above, those pics were taken in Laos and Moscow region. If you need some details more, I'll ask the author to add those, not a big deal. Ergo, 15 shots left, the authors of which are Viktor Kolesnikov (Kazakhstan), Dina Rogatnykh (Amur region), Alex Dumchus, Alexandr Yurochkin (Ukraine). The first three usually note location, and these lacking photos seem to have been added much earlier when it maybe was not so clear how to make it properly. So if the identification of these very species depends vitally on the location, just comment a photo. Now authors are free to add the location any time, no matter how long ago they uploaded their photos. If however they won't notice your call, I'll email them what as well any of you may do, their emails are open to everyone.
Guys, according to the foresaid, I'd' like to ask, where is there a trouble with location of the undetermined photos on the website?
While I'm waiting for your replies, want to mention some issues that we will have if the location note becomes mandatory:
1. New users happen to experience some difficulties in the upload process. Not everyone can comprehend what she/he has to do. This might seem banal to veteran users, yet I assure you, the thing is real.
2. Some users who are not familiar much with zoology may be disconcerted with not interface but the very location field. That happens too.
3. Now we've got no moderation. So users may upload photos first and then gradually change/add info in their personal accounts. When they upload whole archives, it's the one possible way to process data. What to do in such case if not only put some special button in the personal account? Which (button) appears to be not handy.
At the same time, when a new user is uploading photos without location and we ask him/her to do and explain how to do that, he/she usually adds all the necessary info and keeps that in mind for future pics. So why scapegoat and drive away people than instead elucidate and teach little by little how to handle properly with uploads?

Imho, that depends upon goals. Me personally, I'm not interested in identifying whatever without location data. :) And that location should be as much precise. Just "Moscow region" is not enough! ;) Matter of taste, though.

Petr, yet you're right about some things, when the species is to be identified, there are two scenarios: 1. "Ok, this one looks similar to that species, I'll put a question then" (those who know species poorly). 2. "No location? Hell with that, or this will finally turn out to be some Asian twin" (those who know species good). Also if some species without location data don't have the "undetermined" status, this doesn't mean they're identified correctly. Neither do I try to ID such, nor Evgeny, Dmitry or Vasily feel great about those. The new upload page should have a big red text saying "Please provide the photo/s with precise caught/shot location since this increases the scientific value of your picture", or sort of. :)

Old announced the change of algorithm download just the time to clean up, hang in its place a message on the need to possibly accurate indication of geography.

I do not want to create a separate topic on a small matter, so I am here. And he is. When referring to literary sources, for example: to insects of the Far East of the USSR under the spread indicated-European part of the USSR.As correctly points-European part of Russia? or according to the book, to which reference is made European part of the USSR?

The determinants that are dedicated to a single state-woo. or a region is better not to use when specifying the distribution.
It is necessary to use obobschennnye sources where the spread of the countries indicated. The insect can be extended not only to the USSR or Russia
In your case, probably it is necessary to transfer state-va.Previously included as republics e.ch. THE USSR.

Well, Basil, you can list the state, if you know what this kind of there. And then write or Lithuania, Moldova, and the species range only in the Russian Federation. You just need to look for when sources with more accurate guidance range.

Eugene, so I started this, and :) best not to use tkie sources.
Yuri, an example of the source where everything is laid out on shelves: http://www.faunaeur.org/distribution.php

Basil! Then what to use? Dr. No sources. Waiting when will publish a new one? Determinant, it is still a kind approved, accepted the document, unlike inetovskih viewpoints. Just would like to insect enthusiasts somehow guided that they inhabit and how it looks and what net.I so on.The site is part of all this only in Lepidoptera may be the above questions indicate that ... the European part of Russia (USSR) - like everything all in this case is clear. Or give up on everything by hand and let everyone is looking for the Old where it can.
Opinions still be?

Basil did not need me to give examples with shelves, it looks like a page with the addition of information.

Yuri, instead of responding in this way, you would have resulted in the form in which the information is needed, and I have brought an example of how this infa sought this power.For example, same-Phaneroptera falcata
Beat in line Genus genus name
A string name of the species Species
Click the Search button
Then, the obtained result, click Display in table
And you will see the difference between this site and the spread specified in Faune Europaea

Basil! I do not see at line Genus and species Accordingly, I can not include a search and see the results in the table. Like the entire interface is examined. I just below the show all units is a long line where you can write everything you need and include search, and if you need to move on Yandex

The link http://www.faunaeur.org/distribution.php
Page looks exactly the same in the three browsers.
Looks like that:

He stressed dotted line where to drive and what to press.
Well, then according to the instructions (above) :)

Vasily, I have several browsers: Amigo, mail , Google, Yandex. But the site I do not see the insects komand.iz table. In an Internet looked, there except for the genus and species offer more to enter the country where the insect lives. Maybe that is not so do, then another look.
Ps dotted line does not necessarily highlight was common interface.

The country should not be added. Suffice it taxa. It goes all the finds.
Fauna Europaea is only an infinitesimal an adequate framework for the dissemination of those taxa that are in Europe.
For example: Phaneroptera falcata me close to home gallops. Because of her, and brought.
But there appears infa on the entire range (not only in Europe).
So, I recommend :)

Thank you, Basil!

Yuri, in the above example, you need to write "European part of the former Soviet Union."
Basil, with regards to this here:
The determinants that are dedicated to a single state-woo. or a region is better not to use when specifying spread.
It's that all about? Well People believe they can.
Such sources are used quite normally.Remember, when we add the Old of the distribution, we do not have to describe the whole area, we just write the Old to the locality, which was found. And on the page is already combined with other available ifnormatsiey of range.
So, citizens once again. This:
The determinants that are dedicated to a single state-woo.or a region is better not to use when specifying spread.
is a personal opinion of Basil and is not a recommendation to use online Insecta.pro.

Peter, and now explain why use them if there are all the resources available where you can specify the accurate and more complete information than from the regional determinant?

From the point of view of Peter agrees. The link Basil - Yes, clearly, colorful, beautiful, except for the text presented maps showing the distribution points, and also shows the places where there is no data on the insect. But that's it. Such a schedule is good for a variety of presentations. But all this is useless when you need to figure out appearance, biology and so on.So without qualifiers is not enough. Basil, I created a shortcut, look more this reference, but the view is unlikely to change.

Peter is right - in many regional determinants of the data can be more accurately is essential. As an example I can give you incomplete information on the distribution of many species of ground beetles on a magnificent, for all that, the resource carabidae.org
In particular, a recent example. The site for the species Carabus constricticollis stated "Countries and regions: China (Jilin), North Korea, Russia (Maritime Prov).However, the species is distributed much west to Khabarovsk, which is reflected in the "Red Tomiko", ie Determinant of Soviet Far East (the regional). And this very much, so an absolute no resource is impossible.

So it comes to distributing and Yuri. And the link I gave not the determinant.
To determine not do without qualifiers. But that is another matter.
Sometimes when you make a type of lead is necessary for different graph - different sources.
To specify the spread of best fit all the same general sources of information on the form, and not regional.Regional sources are best suited for their needs, not the result of these types of pages on the Old whose habitat is much wider than the region, which is dedicated to the determinant.
To specify the distribution of species, which are marked in the vast Palaearctic region just Fauna Europaea and gives the most detailed information.

Well, Basil. Persuaded. Right now, I call the phone and explain where you're wrong.
ZY Money put on the phone, and then up to you not to call. It would be necessary to discuss the matter floor quickly to remove the snowstorm from the site, while the Cubs have not taken it seriously.

Basil, emphasize that the only for the European species! Well, they have no basis in species limited East Palearctic and TB rest.

Eugene, himself quote :)
Post on 01/28/2016 12:08:
"Fauna Europaea is only an infinitesimal adequate framework for the dissemination of those taxa that are in the Europe "

Peter, I'm on Skype show up an hour and a half or two. If you will - mayakni there.

By the way, said Phaneroptera falcata we in St. Petersburg has already appeared, as http://www.faunaeur.org does not know yet:
http://www.faunaeur.org/Maps/display_map.php?map_name=euro&map_language=en&taxon1=403293

Ivan, that geography of (truncated) with the fauna:
"Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Britain, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Turkey, French (mainland), Hungary, Italy (mainland), Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Portugal (mainland), Romania, Russia (Central,Eastern and Southern parts), Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain (mainland), Switzerland, the Netherlands, Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, Vojvodina, Montenegro, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan, the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt) Arabian peninsula, Iran, Iraq,eastern part of the Palearctic "
For resources of this magnitude it is enough that the three parts of Russia, (including Eastern which includes ET)
But specifically in the city of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region, you can add a personal message (luckily there is a jackdaw in the form of the addition).
P.S.He and Defense (10 km from the borders of Moscow) was first seen by me in 2005. And in the fauna is also not concretized. Mezhdunarodnyyu resources that are usually not involved.

Basil, I'm talking about the card - it is not true. In northern Russia, where they apparently include St. Petersburg, plastinokryl there, but they do not yet know. Here's the map: http://www.faunaeur.org/Maps/display_map.php?map_name=euro&map_language=en&taxon1=403293

St. Petersburg is far from the boundaries of the Central Russia, so the lack of detail is not to be written off. In the right they have to specify the Northern Russia.

Must.
And maybe corny unknown or have not been updated.
For a long time he appeared in St. Petersburg?

I have them in the summer of 2015 sfotkal. According to the opinion of PV Ozersk (chief of grasshopper on molbiole) - this is the first discovery in the city (he even co-wrote an article where he mentioned this finding). I'm not even in fact raised the debate, but simply remarked that it was an exemplary example plastinokryl proved incorrect.

Why is incorrect. Very correct. Sooner still say that if you found it for the first time only this summer.
Just too little time has passed to include Peter in distribution. According unit finds such things are not done (delivery can be anything).

In that article, the findings mentioned in the south of Leningrad. reg., Novgorod and Pskov region https://yadi.sk/i/5pk6zMdSnvW52. After this article, I have not yet met at least a dozen.

Well, then do not come down more data to them.

By the way, in the same place in 2014 sfotkal another grasshopper - swordsman ordinary https://insecta.pro/taxonomy/516581 - again the first finding in St. Petersburg (according to the same PV Ozersk). And in 2015 already met its "descendants". Interestingly, after such a cold winter in the summer, these grasshoppers appear?