Big Listers v Big % Finders? (1 Viewer)

KenM · May 8, 2017

It seems to me....that there's a lot of kudos, either rightly, or wrongly ascribed to, and perceived by big listers. Understood, and as a pastime it's a fairly innocuous pursuit, that tends to favour those with the time (older birders generally), and the wallets to indulge in chartering ''transport'' to those far flung outposts within the realm. However, I suspect that most birders don't have the time and money, or even the inclination (especially the old buggers

, to indulge in the ''drop of a vagrant'' birding, that seems to be all the rage nowadays.

This got me thinking, that most of us who can't afford, or want to ''play'' in the ''Premier League'', might prefer to move the goalposts to a more ''level'' playing field...the ''Champions League''. Where the focus might be on the % of finds...of one's own UK life list, rather than the bottom line figure that seems to motivate a large minority of players. This way everybody could play...including the (globe trotting Scilly Shetlanders e.g.

) I wonder what the ''mean average'' might be for the game?

Cheers

DMW · May 9, 2017

I only have 1 species on my life list, Robin. It was self-found, so I am batting at 100%. Is there a prize?

KenM · May 9, 2017

DMW said:
I only have 1 species on my life list, Robin. It was self-found, so I am batting at 100%. Is there a prize?

....surely competing is enough?....Prizes just encourage competition.

Sangahyando · May 9, 2017

KenM said:
It seems to me....that there's a lot of kudos, either rightly, or wrongly ascribed to, and perceived by big listers. Understood, and as a pastime it's a fairly innocuous pursuit, that tends to favour those with the time (older birders generally), and the wallets to indulge in chartering ''transport'' to those far flung outposts within the realm. However, I suspect that most birders don't have the time and money, or even the inclination (especially the old buggers , to indulge in the ''drop of a vagrant'' birding, that seems to be all the rage nowadays.

This got me thinking, that most of us who can't afford, or want to ''play'' in the ''Premier League'', might prefer to move the goalposts to a more ''level'' playing field...the ''Champions League''. Where the focus might be on the % of finds...of one's own UK life list, rather than the bottom line figure that seems to motivate a large minority of players. This way everybody could play...including the (globe trotting Scilly Shetlanders e.g. ) I wonder what the ''mean average'' might be for the game?

Cheers

I can sympathize with that - my life list would be much longer, had I the financial means to go everywhere.

However, one thing I'm curious about (and I don't mean to single you out or anything) is the obsession many UK birders seem to have with UK lists. Without wanting to go into trite politics (seriously. At all), I can't understand why someone would put more emphasis on country listing than a life list, unless it's in the context of a competition, say a "big year". Though maybe I'm wrong and birders from other places are similarly focused on country lists... ?

Stephen Dunstan · May 9, 2017

Sounds like Patchwork Challenge to me, encouraging local birding and with a ranking based on your own average scores as well as one for total species and points. Plus the leagues put like with like.

Jos Stratford · May 9, 2017

KenM said:
... move the goalposts to a more ''level'' playing field...the ''Champions League''. Where the focus might be on the % of finds...of one's own UK life list, rather than the bottom line figure that seems to motivate a large minority of players. This way everybody could play...including the (globe trotting Scilly Shetlanders e.g. ) I wonder what the ''mean average'' might be for the game?

If on a percentage basis, wouldn't this just mean, plus or minus, all non-twitching birders are on, or very close to, 100% with the percentage dropping progressively as you twitch additional species?

Not sure this really levels anything, just illustrates the amount of twitching done.

Paul Chapman · May 9, 2017

Jos Stratford said:
If on a percentage basis, wouldn't this just mean, plus or minus, all non-twitching birders are on, or very close to, 100% with the percentage dropping progressively as you twitch additional species?

Not sure this really levels anything, just illustrates the amount of twitching done.

Indeed.

I must be below 50% on my British & Irish list but will still be able to refer to a few finds. One top lister that I can think of with a better British & Irish list than me but with a raft of identifications/finds to his name - Eastern Olivaceous (when it was rare), Brunnich's, Veery, inland Short-toed Lark, multiple Red-flanked Bluetails, Buff-bellied Pipit (when it was rare), etc, etc, etc - will still be less than 60%..............

That said, I expect that my local patch % must be in the 90's over a patch list in excess of 200.

We're all behind DMW though.

All the best

lewis20126 · May 9, 2017

It is difficult to combine self-found lists with total life lists to produce something vaguely meaningful. A raw % or ratio cannot work very well as explained by others above. Some form of multiplied index would be best but the product would be totally abstract and only useful as a relative measure:

Birder A (twitcher) has self found 250 and seen a total 0f 400 = index 100,000

Birder B (keen rarity finder, occasional twitches) has self found 300 and seen a total of 350 = index 105,000

So there is near parity of the two performances here - add some weighting to the self found (= x 1.5 or x 2) and birder B starts to look much more impressive. But then why not just stick to the self-found as the metric?

cheers, alan

Andy Adcock · May 9, 2017

Sangahyando said:
I can sympathize with that - my life list would be much longer, had I the financial means to go everywhere.

However, one thing I'm curious about (and I don't mean to single you out or anything) is the obsession many UK birders seem to have with UK lists. Without wanting to go into trite politics (seriously. At all), I can't understand why someone would put more emphasis on country listing than a life list, unless it's in the context of a competition, say a "big year". Though maybe I'm wrong and birders from other places are similarly focused on country lists... ?

Isn't there similar competition at State level in the USA, not easy or practical to twitch an entire continent is it! The small size and accessibility of our Nation is one reason why people twitch I'm sure.

There is also the 'Twitcher or Birder' question, some ‘listers’ although few, do not bird at all outside of twitching, the emphasis is on numbers hence competition is the driver. Don't get me wrong, many of the UK's finest enjoy a twitch or two so you can't paint everyone the same colour.

I gave up twitching in favour of World birding, I bird locally wherever I am and have one good holiday per year and I wouldn’t change a thing. I love finding my own birds both on my patches in Russia and abroad but this isn’t meant as a swipe at Twitchers, each to their own. I had my phase as a Twitcher and it gave me the introduction to birding that allowed me to graduate to what I do now so I just see it as part of my birding education and almost for me, a natural progression and I’m not alone in that though some seem to get stuck and never evolve.

The beauty of our hobby is that you can partake at so many levels. There are niches for all pockets and inclinations from those whose every waking day is spent birding, twitching and travelling abroad to those happy to just watch a feeder. For most, there will be limitations, others are luckier.

Enjoy your birding to the fullest of whatever your personal limitations are, be they financial, temporal or physical, we’re not here forever.

A

Helsinki Birder · May 9, 2017

lewis20126 said:
It is difficult to combine self-found lists with total life lists to produce something vaguely meaningful. A raw % or ratio cannot work very well as explained by others above. Some form of multiplied index would be best but the product would be totally abstract and only useful as a relative measure:

cheers, alan

It can tell you a bit about the type of birder you are though. If someone tells you they're on 500 British lifelist and found 300 species, putting them on 60%, you know they're working for their own birds.

I'm on 76% of 385 species in Ireland.

Owen

lewis20126 · May 9, 2017

Pariah said:
It can tell you a bit about the type of birder you are though. If someone tells you they're on 500 British lifelist and found 300 species, putting them on 60%, you know they're working for their own birds.

I'm on 76% of 385 species in Ireland.

Owen

The extreme example posted by Duncan above proves why this metric is flawed. A beginner who has found their first ten birds (or one hundred) and never twitched scores more highly than you!

I think a raw self-found list is probably best, but then depends to some extent on context, location etc. So as mentioned above, self found list expressed as a percentage of total birds recorded within the relevant area might be 'best'.

cheers, alan

Nutcracker · May 9, 2017

If you really want to bird with a difference, try 'green' listing. No use of cars. You'll realise just how essential cars are to modern birding - not just that most of the best birding sites are inaccessible, but also no more easy refuge from poor weather, nor roadside hide for close views. And limited to a birding radius of approx 10-15 km from home (particularly if you also don't use any motorised transport, like busses - not that they often go near good birding sites). Your typical yearlist will be cut to around 150-170 / year, and you'll miss most rarities.

Helsinki Birder · May 9, 2017

lewis20126 said:
The extreme example posted by Duncan above proves why this metric is flawed. A beginner who has found their first ten birds (or one hundred) and never twitched scores more highly than you!

I think a raw self-found list is probably best, but then depends to some extent on context, location etc. So as mentioned above, self found list expressed as a percentage of total birds recorded within the relevant area might be 'best'.

cheers, alan

Well, no, as you have to quote that second figure, and then do the mental weighing scales. A 100% of 1 or even 150 in a British context is meaningless, as there's that many species obtainable relatively effortlessly.

300 out of 500 tells you this is a birder AND twitcher.

300 out of 300 tells you this person finds their own stuff and only their own stuff.

It's all relative.

Owen

Sangahyando · May 9, 2017

andyadcock said:
Isn't there similar competition at State level in the USA, not easy or practical to twitch an entire continent is it! The small size and accessibility of our Nation is one reason why people twitch I'm sure.

There is also the 'Twitcher or Birder' question, some ‘listers’ although few, do not bird at all outside of twitching, the emphasis is on numbers hence competition is the driver. Don't get me wrong, many of the UK's finest enjoy a twitch or two so you can't paint everyone the same colour.

I gave up twitching in favour of World birding, I bird locally wherever I am and have one good holiday per year and I wouldn’t change a thing. I love finding my own birds both on my patches in Russia and abroad but this isn’t meant as a swipe at Twitchers, each to their own. I had my phase as a Twitcher and it gave me the introduction to birding that allowed me to graduate to what I do now so I just see it as part of my birding education and almost for me, a natural progression and I’m not alone in that though some seem to get stuck and never evolve.

The beauty of our hobby is that you can partake at so many levels. There are niches for all pockets and inclinations from those whose every waking day is spent birding, twitching and travelling abroad to those happy to just watch a feeder. For most, there will be limitations, others are luckier.

Enjoy your birding to the fullest of whatever your personal limitations are, be they financial, temporal or physical, we’re not here forever.

A

Can't say I disagree with any of this, but my fundamental point is that while country lists are great, a world life list seems to be more interesting. Particularly if you're not being competitive about it.

P.S. does this forum have spoiler tags, e.g. for lengthy quotes? Would enormously help with legibility.

Nutcracker said:
If you really want to bird with a difference, try 'green' listing. No use of cars. You'll realise just how essential cars are to modern birding - not just that most of the best birding sites are inaccessible, but also no more easy refuge from poor weather, nor roadside hide for close views. And limited to a birding radius of approx 10-15 km from home (particularly if you also don't use any motorised transport, like busses - not that they often go near good birding sites). Your typical yearlist will be cut to around 150-170 / year, and you'll miss most rarities.

Good point, although I can usually manage around 180-200 species per year without using a car (don't see what's wrong with using buses and trains, though). Depends on where you live, how good access via public transport is (mostly lackluster, I agree, but in a few locations, it's surprisingly good), and which distances you are prepared to walk or ride on a bicycle/horse/camel/whatever.

lewis20126 · May 9, 2017

Pariah said:
Well, no, as you have to quote that second figure, and then do the mental weighing scales. A 100% of 1 or even 150 in a British context is meaningless, as there's that many species obtainable relatively effortlessly.

300 out of 500 tells you this is a birder AND twitcher.

300 out of 300 tells you this person finds their own stuff and only their own stuff.

It's all relative.

Owen

OK, if you want to include both numbers and use your knowledge to interpret the results, then that's fine of course and I don't disagree with your examples. But a more powerful index would be one that didn't rely on so much interpretation (which comes from experience) - perhaps there isn't one.

cheers, alan

Paul Chapman · May 9, 2017

Sangahyando said:
However, one thing I'm curious about (and I don't mean to single you out or anything) is the obsession many UK birders seem to have with UK lists.

A few thoughts:-
(i) it dates from a time when world travel was less 'easy';
(ii) it dates from a time when national travel was less expensive;
(iii) it is fun and carries with it a sense of camaraderie of kindred spirits within a group that often sits less within the mainstream of society;
(iv) it gradually becomes less intrusive - say 4-6 interruptions of other birding activities per year;
(v) it routinely takes you to stunning locations and away from crowded ones - how can you not enjoy an excuse to go to North Ronaldsay or Barra or the Scillies.......; &
(vi) the location of the UK places it in a remarkable position for vagrants - 550+ is realistic in 25 years doubling the normal number of species and combining Asian and American vagrants.

But primarily because it is fun and I enjoy it.

All the best

Andy Adcock · May 9, 2017

Paul Chapman said:
A few thoughts:-
(i) it dates from a time when world travel was less 'easy';
(ii) it dates from a time when national travel was less expensive;
(iii) it is fun and carries with it a sense of camaraderie of kindred spirits within a group that often sits less within the mainstream of society;
(iv) it gradually becomes less intrusive - say 4-6 interruptions of other birding activities per year;
(v) it routinely takes you to stunning locations and away from crowded ones - how can you not enjoy an excuse to go to North Ronaldsay or Barra or the Scillies.......; &
(vi) the location of the UK places it in a remarkable position for vagrants - 550+ is realistic in 25 years doubling the normal number of species and combining Asian and American vagrants.

But primarily because it is fun and I enjoy it.

All the best

A very holistic and rounded attitude Paul, however I think it's fair to say that not all are so balanced!

Agree totally about the UK landscape, most people don't see the UK to it's fullest as twitchers do, an aspect of twitching that many won't have thought of.

A

Jos Stratford · May 9, 2017

Paul Chapman said:
(v) it routinely takes you to stunning locations and ...

...petrochemical slumlands in the depths of Teesside. Think I never fully recovered from that first Double-crested Cormorant :-O

Nutcracker · May 9, 2017

Jos Stratford said:
...petrochemical slumlands in the depths of Teesside. Think I never fully recovered from that first Double-crested Cormorant :-O

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:3

3

(except you mis-spelled Teescide

)

Nutcracker · May 9, 2017

Sangahyando said:
Good point, although I can usually manage around 180-200 species per year without using a car (don't see what's wrong with using buses and trains, though). Depends on where you live, how good access via public transport is (mostly lackluster, I agree, but in a few locations, it's surprisingly good), and which distances you are prepared to walk or ride on a bicycle/horse/camel/whatever.

Not in Britain. Public transport is immeasurably better in Germany (and most other places in the EU), and far more affordable, too.

An old graph from several years ago, but just as true now, if not more so, than then (this is what privatised rail systems do for you):

Big Listers v Big % Finders? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Eastern Exile

Well-known member

Well-known member

Worst person on Birdforum

Stealth Birder

Well-known member

Stop Brexit!

Stealth Birder

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Worst person on Birdforum

Eastern Exile

Stop Brexit!

Stop Brexit!

Attachments

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread