-
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.
Etosha National Park help to id new birds? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter GladysJo
- Start date
Thanks. Always a good idea to put the location in the title as well as in the body of the post. You get more useful responses that way. With nice clear photos like those I'm sure someone will soon come along with the ID. . ..
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Even though Etosha is one of the Worlds most famous parks, unless you're American it seems......
A US poster the other day posted 'Boston', we were left to assume Mass but the original is in the UK.
Re ID, juvenile Pale Chanting Goshawk and Greater Kestrel.
Last edited:
Agree with Pale Chanting Goshawk and Greater Kestrel.
I also agree that Etosha is easily one of the most famous places for birds in Africa and anyone who can help with the ID will immediately know where it is. For somewhere so well known I don't think it's necessary to put the country in the title of the thread in addition to the place. For more obscure places it's a good idea though.
I also agree that Etosha is easily one of the most famous places for birds in Africa and anyone who can help with the ID will immediately know where it is. For somewhere so well known I don't think it's necessary to put the country in the title of the thread in addition to the place. For more obscure places it's a good idea though.
Even though Etosha is one of the Worlds most famous parks, unless you're American it seems......
A US poster the other day posted 'Boston', we were left to assume Mass but the original is in the UK.
Famous, maybe, but I—and quite a few other non-“world birders” I imagine—had never heard of it. And what does the “Boston” poster have to do with any of this?
Not “necessary to put the country in the title of the thread” for “well-known places”? What’s “well-known” to some people might not be for others. I’ve been a birder since childhood and had never heard of Etosha and I’m sure there are many other BFers who could say the same.
A little history to put things in proper perspective. In the “old days” the guidelines were stricter on this point, the intention of my rewrite (in my moderator days) being to reword them in a more welcoming way—not as hard-and-fast “rules” but as “suggestions”. The softening was in response to a few “strict constructionists” among the membership—ID “experts” who objected to clicking ID posts only to find themselves confronted by birds from places outside their areas of expertise. Sounds silly now but it was a real irritant back then, with a number of people attacking other members—many of them newbies—for violating “The Rules”.
All this said, I find it a pity to see a moderator walk back long established guidelines the way you’ve just done for, to my mind, no good reason.
Last edited:
Hi Fugl,
From the guidelines that appear as a sticky for the ID forum:
This was written by yourself. I agree with it but you yourself emphasise that putting more information about the location in the title of the thread 'makes it more likely that people knowledgeable about the birds of the area will bother to take a look at it.' My contention would be that anyone with any significant knowledge of birds in Namibia or southern Africa will certainly have heard of Etosha. It's the most famous place for birds in that country and one of the most famous areas for wildlife in Africa.
I'm not rolling anything back. The poster had put enough information in the title to attract anyone knowledgeable about the area and I don't think it's necessary for someone who happens not to have heard of a very well known place to criticise them for their title.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Well you didn't single the American out for criticism despite there being more than one Boston and neither very famous to birders.There is just one Etosha and of World renown for both birds and animals so even many non birders know it.
And US state abbreviations which the World is assumed / expected to be au fait with?
Last edited:
Valéry Schollaert
Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
I'm among the people who prefer that the name of the country would appear systematically, whatever the place is famous or not, even in USA. It helps when we read the title, it helps when we use the search tool, it helps when we use google.
Yes, I agree with this. For example, so American posters seem to think that flycatchers or sandpipers only occur in their part of the world.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying it isn't useful to put the country or further details in the title (or more importantly in the first post). It's just that in this case the site is famous and does more than enough to attract the attention of anyone who knows the region.
Of course if someone isn't sure where Etosha is and wants to check they can always Google it. I just tried and and it took approximately two seconds and the first entry says 'Etosha National Park - Namibia'. And there's a Google Map link. That might be a better option than criticising the OP for not including enough information for you personally (though not for anyone who knows the region and is thus in a position to comment on the ID of the birds).
Isn't this the point, Andrew?
I've been to Etosha several times, and it's true that anyone who has been to Namibia (and maybe Botswana) will know it. On the other hand, for someone who doesn't know, then it could be anywhere on the planet.
It's not that difficult to put the country in the title. I think we should continue to stress it. I'm lucky enough to have an ultrafast fibre internet connection at home, so it doesn't bother me economically if I click on a question from a place that I know nothing about. But we have members who are not so lucky - and why should they have to 'google' the location if the OP can't be bothered to include it?
Sangahyando
Well-known member
I agree, there shouldn't be exceptions. Even though I've known about Etosha for most of my life, despite never having set foot on African soil.
In my observation, it's usually British people on this forum who seem to think that everyone knows the location of their local patch or of typically British holiday destinations around the Med. On most other English-speaking sites, that role goes to Americans.
I think it's a good idea to occasionally remind oneself that the internet is a virtual space and not part of any one country.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
I just flipped back through the first three pages and the only examples I quickly found (not including this one) of people transgressing, are Polish, Canadian and American.
My own observation recently is that this site has become much more 'American' with many more posters from the US than there have been in the past, just my impression.
Even the spell checker uses American English.
Last edited:
But the point is that those people who don't know it won't be able to help with the ID, which is what's emphasised in our guidelines that Fugl himself wrote. And if they want to know then it's definitely going to be quicker to Google it than to write a post asking a question that criticises the OP for not mentioning where it is and then waiting for a reply.
As I've emphasised before, I'm not saying it isn't useful to put the country in the title and/or the first post. I do this myself (I started an ID thread yesterday where I did this). In this case however, it's much more important to be more specific about the location. Putting 'Namibia' in the title and the first post but not saying it was in Etosha would help the Fugls of this world who don't know where Etosha is but would be unhelpful to people who know the birds of Namibia and can help with the ID. They would want more specific information, which would be useful in this case for deciding on the Goshawk ID.
I think bigger problems have occured with posts where the country is mentioned but no more specific locations are (either in the title or the first post). People will post things like 'ID in Costa Rica' or 'Bird in Australia' where you really do need more specific details for difficult IDs. That's also information that only the OP can give you and Google can't.
As I keep saying, anyone who is qualified to ID the birds in this thread will know where Etosha is. Anyone who doesn't would save time and aggravation by using their favoured search engine rather than criticising the OP. It is, however, nice to give as much detail on location (and also date) as possible in the title and/or first post. I should add that most posters provide enough information, regardless of which country they come from
.
Last edited:
No, the country should definitely be in the title, and indeed a little more if it helps. For example, I'm in Nara, Japan, near Kyoto and Osaka. When I ask a question, I usually put 'central Japan' in the title. The location of 'central Japan' can be disputed, but at least people will know it's not Hokkaido and not Okinawa. The first post should contain more detailed information - if necessary, which it sometimes is and sometimes isn't. In the case of Namibia, it definitely is, because of the varied habitats and terrain.
It's true that if the title is whether a bird is X or Y (e.g. yellow wagtail or grey wagtail), then the actual location or country may not be necessary, but I still think it's worthwhile.
We all, presumably, who use this site want people to use it as much as possible if they have a genuine question - but on the other hand, not to use it as a replacement for buying a field guide and doing their best using it before asking here. For my own part, I'm much more likely to click on a question and attempt to give an answer if the title is precise. If not, I often don't click in the first place.
Incidentally, I almost never answer if people don't post the photos on BF itself, rather than link to some other photo site - but that may be just me.
In principle I agree, although I wouldn't want to have to be the one who chastises all the Americans for just putting the state and the British who just put a county
.In principle I agree, although I wouldn't want to have to be the one who chastises all the Americans for just putting the state and the British who just put a county
Yes, but even Americans and Britons, and also the rest of us, are often asking about birds in countries we visit on holiday, so the location of our profile on the left of the post is often irrelevant to the question.
I have more sympathy for Americans, because it's usually the case that because of time difference there is a string of American posts with nothing else intervening. I know it's not easy, but I've often wondered with BF becoming such a leading site, if it might not be possible to have posters click on a region when we post (e.g. eastern palearctic, neoarctic, or whatever) - and maybe it would be then possible to search using these terms.
Anyway in my timezone, I'm off to bed now. It's true that the site works anyway as is, but I don't think it's difficult or wrong to encourage people to follow rules that are helpful, if not essential, to a lot of members.
