• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

UK list to age ratio (1 Viewer)

Runcorn Birder

Well-known member
A strictly unofficial way of seeing whether you are on target for a decent life list...

Simply divide the number of different BOU species on your list by your age. My guideline below will tell you how you're doing.

Ages 12-18
Average - 8 or below
Good - Between 8+12
Excellent 12 & above

19-24
Average - 7 or below
Good - Between 7+11
Excellent 11 & above

25-30
Average - 6 or below
Good - Between 6+11
Excellent - 11 & above

31-35
Average - 6 or below
Good - Between 6+10
Excellent - 10 or above

36-40
Average - 5 or below
Good - Between 5+10
Excellent - 10 or above

41-45
Average - 5 or below
Good - Between 5+9½
Excellent - 9½ or above

45-50
Average - 4½ or below
Good - Between 4½+8½
Very Good - Between 7½ + 8½
Excellent - 8½ or above

51-55
Average - 4 or below
Good - Between 4+7
Very Good Between 7+8
Excellent - 8 or above

56-60
Average - 4 or below
Good - Between 4+6½
Very Good Between 6½+7½
Excellent - 7½ or above

61+
Average - 3½ or below
Good - Between 3½ + 6
Very Good Between 6+7
Excellent - 7 or above
 
Mine is just over 10¼ and I'm 31. Using age fractions (eg I'm actually 31.67 years old) It reached 10 for the first time in July with a Cattle Egret in Cambridgeshire !!!
 
Is this your idea Runcorn Birder? I like it... :t:

Unfortunately, I come out as an average, so at this rate I'll make the UK400 club just after I reach 114.
 
Hi there,
For this to work, there would have to be some sort of 'handicap system' for other countries: while my score still works out as 'good', my actual list total (which is slightly over 320) isn't that great by BRITISH standards, but a whole sight better (if still 'small' in the scheme of things) for Ireland.
Regards,
Harry
 
I did both my UK Life List & my 2005 Year List (so far, obviously). Both came out as Good!!
The reason being that my Year List is only 27 behind my Life List!! But, I only began my Life List at the end of 2003, which explains why they're both so close .... and that I've had a good year birding this year too!!
Good little thread this, well done Runcorn Birder!!
 
Harry Hussey said:
Hi there,
For this to work, there would have to be some sort of 'handicap system' for other countries: while my score still works out as 'good', my actual list total (which is slightly over 320) isn't that great by BRITISH standards, but a whole sight better (if still 'small' in the scheme of things) for Ireland.
Regards,
Harry
I reckon your Irish 320 is certainly "better" than my UK 350...

What are the top Irish listers on? Then we can work out an adjustment factor, given we know top UK list is a little over 500...
 
My target for next year is to hit 300 on my UK Life List!! This years target was to hit 250 on my UK Life List .... well, I've gone past that!! So, I'm pretty chuffed, but I know 300 is going to be tricky!!
Got a couple of lifers lined up for next week - Long-billed Dowitcher @ IMF (provided it sticks) & Black Scoter @ Llanfairfechan (provided it shows!!). ;)
 
I've been out of the UK for ten years (and had only one UK tick in that period), but still`work out as 'excellent'! Guess it means I rather overdosed in my UK twitching days!
 
Hmmm.... Define "decent life list"! I know this is only meant to be a bit of fun, but I think Runcorn Border's scale may need a bit of tweaking. As currently given, it's still excellent if you don't hit 400 until you're 40 years old. Now... not being one of the "in crowd" I could be entirely wrong, but I suspect that in listing circles this would be regarded only as very good. And those tearaways who do all their haring around in their early twenties might even regard it as pretty average. My own rating comes out at very good and will remain so even if I don't get another tick before I retire, yet I'm quite sure that most twitchers would regard my list as rather tartish for someone of my age.
 
Hi Dave,
dbradnum said:
I reckon your Irish 320 is certainly "better" than my UK 350...

What are the top Irish listers on? Then we can work out an adjustment factor, given we know top UK list is a little over 500...
The top lister here is on around 390 species.
Harry
 
Bluetail said:
Hmmm.... Define "decent life list"! I know this is only meant to be a bit of fun, but I think Runcorn Border's scale may need a bit of tweaking. .

Me thinks so too ... my list, as mentioned a couple of posts earlier, has advanced by a meagre ONE in over ten years, but still gets top rating ...and even if I never see another bird in the UK, my list will still be 'very good' when I hit pension age in close on three decades from here :'D

Shouldn't it be divided by number of years birding (or twitching), cos what difference does it make if a newcomer to birding starts twitching at 20 or 40 or 60 ...the list goes up at the same speed.
 
I agree that the category boundaries are set a bit low. 330 birds by the age of 30, 400 by 40 gets you "excellent" - neither are particularly challenging, given the rare bird news availability these days.

Not sure I like that last idea very much, though, Jos...

... if you divide by number of years birding, then to get a "top" rating, you can't serve any kind of birding apprenticeship - you have twitch like mad from the word go. Arguably not a great way to learn your birds.

Still, the whole listing thing is only a bit of fun anyway....

... isn't it?
 
Harry Hussey said:
Hi Dave,

The top lister here is on around 390 species.
Harry
So your 320 is equivalent to:

320 * (500 / 390 ) = 410

... if we assume that on average the birds are equally easy to get over in the land of Guinness.

[edit: actual figure should be a bit higher, since Mr Johns is well past 500 now...]
 
Last edited:
dbradnum said:
Not sure I like that last idea very much, though, Jos...

... if you divide by number of years birding, then to get a "top" rating, you can't serve any kind of birding apprenticeship - you have twitch like mad from the word go. Arguably not a great way to learn your birds.


Totally agree, but thread was about a 'decent list', not always a sign you have learnt your birds :)

Na, prob needs a bit of tweaking with the levels and stick with how it is ...for me, it's great - never need to twitch a bird again and my list ranks as very good or excellent for evermore :))
 
I come out with 0.025:-((( But then, I have only ever seen one bird in England. Now, if I took my Kenyan list:)))))))
 
Great thread! But I think the formula is a bit age discriminatory. If I admit to my real age (Aargh!) my rating is ok but I never had all the advantages of modern birders when I was a lad. No modern optics, pagers, internet, birdforum etc.and certainly no car! I just had to sit on Cley east bank and hope something turned up. Had I been able to hare round the country clocking off birds in my carefree teens and twenties I would probably have reached my current total before I was 25. I also suffered a huge gap in serious birding when kids,work and mortgage took over my life. As already mentioned perhaps instead of age we should count number of years of actual birding.That puts my rating through the ceiling...!!
Then again, perhaps there should be a handicap system for people like me who were fortunate enough to spend large chunks of their adolescence sat around on Cley east bank!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top