-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
What Would You Do: Someone badly misidentifying birds on a list (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Zackiedawg
- Start date
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
In the main in my view the odd record on ebird which appears as a singleton with very little likelihood of being seen will not effect the overall value of the dataset - an example checklist below:-
https://ebird.org/ebird/hotspot/L127332/media?yr=all&m=
The issue of rarities is different but I suspect that people will get the flavour of what is happening quickly and indeed, real rarities are subject to moderation.
All the best
Zackiedawg
Well-known member
Many thanks all. Good to hear all the ways people would have handled it themselves, with most taking the same road as I (I won't call one road 'high' or the other 'low' - just different!).
Indeed, for the most part the mid-identifications will be figured out on e-bird, though as some pointed out, some of the IDs were actually possible at this site, just not at all common (golden winged warbler, orange-crowned warbler & sharp shinned hawk would all be birds occurring in this area, but rare spottings - Nashville warbler would be much more rare here). So there might be a few people hoping to spot such a bird after reading e-bird - I guess the worst that happens is they don't find it...but there are so many birds down here this time of year, a trip to these wetlands will never be disappointing.
And fortunately, no guns at these wetlands...at least none you know about! I've been to some of the western wetlands in Florida and there are as many hunters as photographers...so you best not hide down low in the brush trying to sneak up on a bird...in those areas, you stand tall and loud and wear very bright colors!
Indeed, for the most part the mid-identifications will be figured out on e-bird, though as some pointed out, some of the IDs were actually possible at this site, just not at all common (golden winged warbler, orange-crowned warbler & sharp shinned hawk would all be birds occurring in this area, but rare spottings - Nashville warbler would be much more rare here). So there might be a few people hoping to spot such a bird after reading e-bird - I guess the worst that happens is they don't find it...but there are so many birds down here this time of year, a trip to these wetlands will never be disappointing.
And fortunately, no guns at these wetlands...at least none you know about! I've been to some of the western wetlands in Florida and there are as many hunters as photographers...so you best not hide down low in the brush trying to sneak up on a bird...in those areas, you stand tall and loud and wear very bright colors!
Farnboro John
Well-known member
I think the solution is to give them directions to a (non-existent) rarity at the site: not only are they bound to chase it but from your description of them they are bound to "see" it..... once their list is on e-bird with it on, you can grass them up to the moderator and that's them done forever. String 'em up!
John
John
On reflection, it is surely preferable to just mind ones own business.
Unless asked, there is no reason to question someone else's IDs. While discussing sightings is one of the joys of birding, trying to correct IDs after the fact often just irritates rather than informs.
Unless asked, there is no reason to question someone else's IDs. While discussing sightings is one of the joys of birding, trying to correct IDs after the fact often just irritates rather than informs.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Surely, if you're seeing the bird that they are seeing and you know they are wrong, most would consider it neighbourly to assist with ID for those less experienced?
In such a circumstance, you're not questioning their ID, you're correcting it, I think that this is the scenario, not an after the fact ID assassination?
A
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Yes, most would. Not all recipients of such assistance though....
I've certainly had the experience of rejection and just walked off.
Mind you I also once had the great satisfaction of assisting an RSPB group visiting Radipole Lake and keen to see both Mediterranean and Ring-billed Gulls that were present: their leader mis-ID'd different aged Common Gulls for both and I corrected him without malice but observed some sniggers and a wicked glint in the eyes of some of his group members - I don't think he was all that popular....
But I've also assisted people who've asked for help, on many occasions. And asked for it myself and received it. Happily, most of the time community spirit wins out.
In the OP's case, I'm afraid the combination of incompetence, rejection, intention to defile e-bird and on my part too much listening to confessions on Simon Mayo's show inclines me to find a way to put one over the couple. My bad. :t:
John
jurek
Well-known member
For you: just ignore these people.
Abut the ebird: I really have an issue with ebird and similar gatherings of huge low quality data in science, which are poorly vetted or not vetted. I seriously doubt whether, as somebody suggested, moderators of ebird check records of all members, flag those who are outliers, and check if they are stringers. Most often publications based on big, low quality data in biology ignore the problem altogether. In short, the authors say: we know we may do bull***t results because we use bull**** data, but we write anyway.
Abut the ebird: I really have an issue with ebird and similar gatherings of huge low quality data in science, which are poorly vetted or not vetted. I seriously doubt whether, as somebody suggested, moderators of ebird check records of all members, flag those who are outliers, and check if they are stringers. Most often publications based on big, low quality data in biology ignore the problem altogether. In short, the authors say: we know we may do bull***t results because we use bull**** data, but we write anyway.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Mark Lew1s
My real name is Mark Lewis
Where has the idea that most of the data on eBird is poor quality come from? Yes there are mistakes in there - but the vast majority of data points in eBird (and BirdTrack, and other citizen science schemes) are correct.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Where did anyone write 'most' though the sheer volume alone is enough to suggest less than stellar quality?
I've certainly seen some very poor birders, uploading stuff when I was in Costa Rica last year.
A
Last edited:
I agree with this. Looking at our local county (Alachua in Florida), we have ca. 50 ebird lists submitted daily. Probably 40 of those are by established birders who live here that I know, another handful are new birders who live here that I know the name but haven't met, and a small fraction are completely unknown to me. The signal from the good birders far outweighs the bad signal, and filters on numbers, season, and rarity catch many errors. I would largely trust most eBird results even with trickier IDs like yellowlegs.
Andy
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Andy,
I think the bigger problem is going to be with areas that don't have a solid base of regular birders. Sites where most sightings are made by visiting, often foreign birders with little experience?
A
Mark Lew1s
My real name is Mark Lewis
I took ‘ebird and similar gatherings of huge low quality data in science’ to mean most.
As said, there’s some crap in there - but the good data outweighs it so heavily that in the vast majority of cases, the mistakes are rendered irrelevant. There have been odd occasions where citizen science data have provided misleading information on the status of particular species over small areas (Ive heard that the population of willow tit in Norfolk is misrepresented by one scheme, for example). But, by and large, the data are sound, and as more and more birders take to this sort of data recording, will continue to get better.
wolfbirder
Well-known member
It has always amused me that other birders actually care what others have on their list.
Prepares to be shot
-
Prepares to be shot
-
KenM
Well-known member
It has always amused me that other birders actually care what others have on their list.
Prepares to be shot
.....surely Nick you have to be joking!!!
jmepler
It's just a flesh wound.
I nearly always point out wrong identifications. I try to be tactful, and most of the time it is met favorably. It sounds like the people in the original post were more interested in adding to their list than actually having the correct identification.
I would point out the list in question to eBird. They can decide what actions to take. We had one notorious stringer that, eventually, had to be banned from eBird. The first step is making the eBird reviewer for the area aware of the situation. It may not be corrected anyway, but I would feel better for having tried.
I would point out the list in question to eBird. They can decide what actions to take. We had one notorious stringer that, eventually, had to be banned from eBird. The first step is making the eBird reviewer for the area aware of the situation. It may not be corrected anyway, but I would feel better for having tried.
jurek
Well-known member
Your story of Willow Tits is a perfect example of very common mistake coming in publications which used big data: bad results based on little data are published along good results based on good data. And at the end, both are treated as good.
I guess the project had lots of valid data points for common species like, say, Robin. For species with little data, like Willow Tit, errors were sometimes sufficent to confuse the picture. But good and bad was published together, and some reader will later pick only Willow Tit and believe nonsense.
Unfortunately, many 'assurances' which people believe about big data points are not true:
- More data does not mean less mistakes. It simply means propagation of errors to a bigger magnitude.
- That most data is true, does not mean that minority of bad data will not spoil results.
- That somebody verifies data by eye and removes ones which look bad is not making data much better. Because one is really producing data set based on his pre-conception. When one finds something new in that data, how do we know whether it is real or an error not filtered because was not expected? When one does not find something, maybe it was hidden by mistake?
I wanted once to write some article or something to a bird magazine 'what mistakes people make when using big databases of bird records' but never got to it. So this little post must be enough...
But coming back to the humble topic, whether a birder can trust ebird when looking for a new bird. My private rule of thumb is to trust the place to go for a new bird only if there are at least 5 records coming from at least 4 different people, and if there is more similar places with the same bird around. Unless I know the birder by name.
I guess the project had lots of valid data points for common species like, say, Robin. For species with little data, like Willow Tit, errors were sometimes sufficent to confuse the picture. But good and bad was published together, and some reader will later pick only Willow Tit and believe nonsense.
Unfortunately, many 'assurances' which people believe about big data points are not true:
- More data does not mean less mistakes. It simply means propagation of errors to a bigger magnitude.
- That most data is true, does not mean that minority of bad data will not spoil results.
- That somebody verifies data by eye and removes ones which look bad is not making data much better. Because one is really producing data set based on his pre-conception. When one finds something new in that data, how do we know whether it is real or an error not filtered because was not expected? When one does not find something, maybe it was hidden by mistake?
I wanted once to write some article or something to a bird magazine 'what mistakes people make when using big databases of bird records' but never got to it. So this little post must be enough...
But coming back to the humble topic, whether a birder can trust ebird when looking for a new bird. My private rule of thumb is to trust the place to go for a new bird only if there are at least 5 records coming from at least 4 different people, and if there is more similar places with the same bird around. Unless I know the birder by name.
Last edited:
Mark Lew1s
My real name is Mark Lewis
Thanks for this Jurek - have you got any links to any papers where I can read up on what you’re saying?
Yes, you can look at the illustrated checklists on ebird, for locations or regions. They have a graph for each species per month, and the quantity of data, plus the date each species was last seen, and the % of checklists seeing the species. It all gives you a rough picture of the likelihood.
I get the occasional email from the data checkers.. Most of my data is entered in bulk, and while this really crunches the data, a few errors slip thru. Mostly obvious ones.. Bird track data converted to ebird seems to result in European Wren being entered into ebird as Wrentit. No idea why, but annoying, to the point that I'd consider under recording Wrens to avoid having to edit the sightings individually! which potentially distorts the data.
I get the occasional email from the data checkers.. Most of my data is entered in bulk, and while this really crunches the data, a few errors slip thru. Mostly obvious ones.. Bird track data converted to ebird seems to result in European Wren being entered into ebird as Wrentit. No idea why, but annoying, to the point that I'd consider under recording Wrens to avoid having to edit the sightings individually! which potentially distorts the data.
