Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Surely a programming error that either birdtrack or ebird can sort out, if notified of the problem :t:
-
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
Jeff Hopkins
Just another...observer
My general approach is to try to explain it once. If they refuse to listen, walk away, and leave them to their fantasies.
Paul Longland
Well-known member
As one who has made (and will continue to do so) many mistakes I am always more than willing to listen to the opinions of others. The majority of birders I meet are generally more than happy to discuss the ins and outs of an ID. Often a two way thing with those same birders just as happy to be corrected as to correct. Often a bird is positively ID'd by consensus following such debate.
However, I have on odd occasions been ignored or even told to mind my own business (and not always so politely) when pointing out someone's errors but generally this is the exception not the rule.
However, I have on odd occasions been ignored or even told to mind my own business (and not always so politely) when pointing out someone's errors but generally this is the exception not the rule.
All spot on.
It is borderline rude imho to proffer unsolicited corrections. The first step is to establish a shared dialog, perhaps just to compare notes. Then IDs can be discussed in a non adversarial mode.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
So, you're standing next to someone and you can see what they'te looking at, they call the ID and it's wrong, you don't correct them until you have a 'shared dialogue'?
A
jurek
Well-known member
The best I can suggest is to search topics 'big data bias' or 'big data accuracy', especially in medicine.
Unfortunately, bird watching and field biology are relative newcomers to big data. So I don't know any paper which really explains it well for birds. One needs to read on big data in varied topics and elastically apply things and solutions to birds. For example, problem of misidentification of birds can be similar to errors in survey response in medicine. Or twitching on known hotspots can easily produce big mistakes in bird abundance similarly to bias in data from smartphones. Sorry, I know of no good way of telling it without changing topic away from birds.
Last edited:
Exactly! It's much easier to reach agreement that way, plus you might make another birding friend.
As the more experienced birder, you probably want to help develop the skills of others. That's best achieved if the experience is painless for the recipient.
Hi Jurek,
I believe that is the reason both eBird and ornitho.de prefer to have lists of birds instead of random sightings.
I talked one of the ornitho.de guys, and he says he feels that he needs to promote the lists more since most of the data that is actually entered has the form of random sightings. In my opinion, promotion will not help much since ornitho.de (and the associated app "Naturalist") suffer from a user interface which makes the list entry workflow awkward.
Regards,
Henning
I believe that is the reason both eBird and ornitho.de prefer to have lists of birds instead of random sightings.
I talked one of the ornitho.de guys, and he says he feels that he needs to promote the lists more since most of the data that is actually entered has the form of random sightings. In my opinion, promotion will not help much since ornitho.de (and the associated app "Naturalist") suffer from a user interface which makes the list entry workflow awkward.
Regards,
Henning
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Larry Sweetland
Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'
What if it wasn't about birds? If a couple of strangers walked past and you heard one of them say "Madrid is the capital of Italy", would you feel obliged to correct them? Or would that be seen as rude?
Mark Lew1s
My real name is Mark Lewis
No worries - thanks anyway. I'll look into it.
Zackiedawg
Well-known member
I always use that general approach of trying to connect on a friendly basis when suggesting help with a bird ID - if I hear someone struggling to identify a species I know for sure, or mis-identifying one, it's usually best to open the conversation with a friendly comment to see if they're receptive. I might mention that I too just saw the bird they were looking at, how beautiful the colors were...mention I got a shot of it, and then can go into the identification with the photo to back it up - I'll usually approach it with 'I'm pretty sure it was a xxx', and then let them see the photo and agree...or not. Sometimes even if they initially disagree, they do so in a way that's clear they're willing to discuss the identification, and we can go into deeper analysis of the pattern, bill shape, eye rings, tail length, etc - and that usually seals the ID.
Might be a bit more difficult to strike up a friendly rapport about the identity of a bird by making a loud buzzer sound, and shouting 'WRONG!' when they make their ID.
As I mentioned in the original post, these folks were in no way rude or unfriendly about it - they even leaned in to check out the photo of the bird - but then they just went back to their business sticking with their IDs. At that point, I decided they just wanted to do their own birding without input from others, and were not really willing to consider they might be wrong - they had their bird guide, and felt their IDs were correct. OK I guess - with my only concern being that they were posting this spotting list to a website where others might be misled...that concern has faded after this thread as many have noted that without additional sightings at that location, it was unlikely that their list would be taken by many as accurate. This is a hotspot and well covered by birders.
To give some point of reference to the post, here are a few of the photographs of the birds which were misidentified...I suppose it's best to confirm that *I'm* not the one who made the wrong IDs! Attached photos by last 3 numbers: 729 - Yellow rumped, aka 'golden winged', 633 - common yellowthroat, aka nashville, 096 - red-winged blackbird, aka marsh wren, and 084 - palm aka orange-crowned. If I'm wrong on any of those, I will owe a silent apology to the couple.
Might be a bit more difficult to strike up a friendly rapport about the identity of a bird by making a loud buzzer sound, and shouting 'WRONG!' when they make their ID.
As I mentioned in the original post, these folks were in no way rude or unfriendly about it - they even leaned in to check out the photo of the bird - but then they just went back to their business sticking with their IDs. At that point, I decided they just wanted to do their own birding without input from others, and were not really willing to consider they might be wrong - they had their bird guide, and felt their IDs were correct. OK I guess - with my only concern being that they were posting this spotting list to a website where others might be misled...that concern has faded after this thread as many have noted that without additional sightings at that location, it was unlikely that their list would be taken by many as accurate. This is a hotspot and well covered by birders.
To give some point of reference to the post, here are a few of the photographs of the birds which were misidentified...I suppose it's best to confirm that *I'm* not the one who made the wrong IDs! Attached photos by last 3 numbers: 729 - Yellow rumped, aka 'golden winged', 633 - common yellowthroat, aka nashville, 096 - red-winged blackbird, aka marsh wren, and 084 - palm aka orange-crowned. If I'm wrong on any of those, I will owe a silent apology to the couple.
Attachments
kb57
Well-known member
I went to a conference once where someone from the BTO was explaining how they deal with errors in big citizen science datasets. I should perhaps have been paying more attention as to how they approach it statistically, but the key point is they are aware of and take account of data quality.
I guess methods like excluding outliers and defining a sufficiently large effect threshold (i.e. higher statistical power) would overcome the limitations of source data. Certainly, as mentioned by others, a manual filtering system is likely to introduce its own problems of bias and subjectivity. It is also true that higher data quality would allow you to extract more useful information (for example, identifying small scale effects that could detect problems with a species' population earlier). Taking UK surveys as examples, Wetland Bird Survey data, collected by experienced observers using standardised methods, is going to allow more detailed analysis than Garden Birdwatch data, where observer competence will be much more varied.
It is also the case that the misidentification of some rare species isn't always that important, unless it is creating a false impression of distribution and abundance. For conservation research it is more important in many cases to be able to count a flock of wigeon rather than (mis)identify a stray American / Eurasian (delete as appropriate) wigeon within them. This isn't to denigrate the importance of getting things right, and always being aware of your own fallibility with respect to bird ID.
I guess methods like excluding outliers and defining a sufficiently large effect threshold (i.e. higher statistical power) would overcome the limitations of source data. Certainly, as mentioned by others, a manual filtering system is likely to introduce its own problems of bias and subjectivity. It is also true that higher data quality would allow you to extract more useful information (for example, identifying small scale effects that could detect problems with a species' population earlier). Taking UK surveys as examples, Wetland Bird Survey data, collected by experienced observers using standardised methods, is going to allow more detailed analysis than Garden Birdwatch data, where observer competence will be much more varied.
It is also the case that the misidentification of some rare species isn't always that important, unless it is creating a false impression of distribution and abundance. For conservation research it is more important in many cases to be able to count a flock of wigeon rather than (mis)identify a stray American / Eurasian (delete as appropriate) wigeon within them. This isn't to denigrate the importance of getting things right, and always being aware of your own fallibility with respect to bird ID.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
If they just walked past I wouldn't chase after them to tell them but if it were a static situation I'd tell them.
I don't think you can compare a scenario where there is supposedly a common interest and where you're stood, looking at the same thing?
Farnboro John
Well-known member
There is also the aspect that you may not be the only additional person there - but you may be the only one with the requisite knowledge/skill.
Unquestionably if I had someone make a grossly wrong ID in front of me, or a series of them such as to demonstrate their incompetence - and there were other birders looking uncertain, baffled or as if they were about to stick a lifer in their notebook as a consequence - I would intervene without further ado to correct the information and the offender would have to take the consequences.
I agree that the softly, softly approach is preferable: but I was brought up to value truth and openness and I expect the same standards of others (I certainly get them on here!) Correcting errors is not running roughshod over peoples sensibilities: if they are open to learning, anyway. The substance is the learning, not the manners. To me it is impolite to leave someone in ignorance.
John
MTem
Well-known member
Agree John, couldn't express it better.
The key is 'if they are open to learning'. I like looking through photos of birds in Gallery here and on other fora or websites. Most are correctly ID'd (or not ID'd) which is great, but quite a few are wrong, some significantly (a professed rarity for example). So if I'm sure I usually try to pm or email suggesting a review and why. Most often met with sincere thanks, but quite often with a range from 'I'm happy with my ID, thanks,' through to 'WTF has it got to do with you, PO'. No problem either way, my skin is thick enough.
As I've commented before (early-onset Alzheimer's.....), I think it's important to ID online photos correctly because they are so often used in Google searches to help corroborate an ID.
Mick
Last edited:
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
You have to be very careful using Google for ID, you have to realise that they are not all correctly identified!
A
Quite so. It is not incumbent on you to tell strangers what to believe unless you are asked.
Telling someone that they are wrong is a pretty direct assault. It puts everything into a bad light. I'd much rather save it for an occasion where there is an opportunity to introduce the truth without showing up the other party.
It would be rude, imho.
Plus for all you know they were discussing a game such as Risk in which that might even be true.
birdmeister
Well-known member
I always use that general approach of trying to connect on a friendly basis when suggesting help with a bird ID - if I hear someone struggling to identify a species I know for sure, or mis-identifying one, it's usually best to open the conversation with a friendly comment to see if they're receptive. I might mention that I too just saw the bird they were looking at, how beautiful the colors were...mention I got a shot of it, and then can go into the identification with the photo to back it up - I'll usually approach it with 'I'm pretty sure it was a xxx', and then let them see the photo and agree...or not. Sometimes even if they initially disagree, they do so in a way that's clear they're willing to discuss the identification, and we can go into deeper analysis of the pattern, bill shape, eye rings, tail length, etc - and that usually seals the ID.
Might be a bit more difficult to strike up a friendly rapport about the identity of a bird by making a loud buzzer sound, and shouting 'WRONG!' when they make their ID.
As I mentioned in the original post, these folks were in no way rude or unfriendly about it - they even leaned in to check out the photo of the bird - but then they just went back to their business sticking with their IDs. At that point, I decided they just wanted to do their own birding without input from others, and were not really willing to consider they might be wrong - they had their bird guide, and felt their IDs were correct. OK I guess - with my only concern being that they were posting this spotting list to a website where others might be misled...that concern has faded after this thread as many have noted that without additional sightings at that location, it was unlikely that their list would be taken by many as accurate. This is a hotspot and well covered by birders.
To give some point of reference to the post, here are a few of the photographs of the birds which were misidentified...I suppose it's best to confirm that *I'm* not the one who made the wrong IDs! Attached photos by last 3 numbers: 729 - Yellow rumped, aka 'golden winged', 633 - common yellowthroat, aka nashville, 096 - red-winged blackbird, aka marsh wren, and 084 - palm aka orange-crowned. If I'm wrong on any of those, I will owe a silent apology to the couple.
Definitely the right way to go about it in my opinion.
I was leading a walk one day, and we had just seen a distant flycatcher hawking from a branch. After passing a tree, we looked again. There was a bird sitting on the distant branch, so I said it was likely the flycatcher. A good friend of mine (and a very experienced observer) spoke up and said, "I think you might want to take another look at it." Sure enough, it was a Brown-headed Cowbird! That was a slightly different situation, but still done in a polite and unobtrusive way as I think it should be done when possible.
By the way, all your IDs are correct. Stunning pictures, too!:t:
