As I mentioned in the follow-up to a checklist question I had, might it be useful to be able to apply checklist constraints to lifelist reports (and similar type reports, depending on how reporting develops in 3.7 and beyond)?

Let's say I enter "Green Jay" as a sighting in Louisiana (presumably, an escapee). It's not on the state list, so it's not going appear on any checklist-formatted report for the state. However, if I run a lifelist for the state, it will show up - even if it's not countable.

So I guess what I'm looking for is a way to constrain Lifelist type reports by the same constraint as a checklist. With that option, a Louisiana Lifelist would only show birds countable in Louisiana (per the checklist that's installed, at least - obviously that's editable).

Unless, as is often the case, I'm overlooking an option that's staring me in the face.

It isn't a really high-priority request, and I know how crowded some of the selection forms are already, but luckily the Lifelist report options tab is relatively unpopulated - so far.

Kevin Morgan

Hi Kevin,

The example you cite for this need is accomplished very well via another method. For your Green Jay seen in LA that you don't want to count/appear on a life list, you would create a UDF yes/no field (e.g. Escapee) and set the LLD (Life List Disabler) property. Then edit your Green Jay sighting and check that UDF field. Now this won't show on life list reports.

fyi

Jeff

Jeff,

This is indeed a decent "workaround," but it's not exactly what I'd call "very well accomplished by another method". I'm not being critical of your choice of words, but this method requires first that you identify each sighting that fits the criteria (not on the checklist for that area), then go back and manually edit each sighting. With the kind of constraint I'm talking about, BD would use its database to simply hide those records automatically.

For someone who's starting a list from scratch, the UDF field wouldn't be a big deal, certainly. But when you're importing thousands of records from another system, and certain exotics are countable in some states but not others, it can get tedious. Granted, not a lot of people (so far) have that kind of volume of records to transfer, but as BD hopefully continues to grow and coax people away from other systems, it maybe more of an issue.

As I noted - it's not a high priority thing, since there's "a way" to accomplish the end result. I'm just suggesting an easier way for the user to get to that result.

Thanks,

Kevin