Norfolnk Bird Report 2018 (1 Viewer)

“I saw this, & started to mutter;
Then, got inna bittuva flutter !
No-one could pronounce
What this do announce:
Its title, you just cannot utter !

This last year’s bad-typo’d Report
Has not made Our County more short:
We’re one letter longer –
Tho’, doubtless, not stronger –
To say it, your mouth must contort !

Perhaps, coz it talks of the Raven
(The bravest black bird, no way craven),
&, its call: a cronk –
Newly heard in Norfolnk –
Is why this misspelling’s engraven (?).

My heart did experience some ire
On the renaming of Our Dear Shire.
But, The Contents ? They’re fine –
It’s just that damn’d spine –
That, somehow, has gone a bit haywire !”

Soon after receiving this, I saw what was only my 2nd Raven in County.

Lol! I hadn't noticed before. Whoever typeset it has my sympathy - a typo's one thing, but on the spine - ouch.

HarassedDad said:

Lol! I hadn't noticed before. Whoever typeset it has my sympathy - a typo's one thing, but on the spine - ouch.

Click to expand...

Find it hard to have any sympathy with whoever has responsibility for this report particularly at the reaction when I've had the temerity to question their ability in the past.

crapbirder said:

Find it hard to have any sympathy with whoever has responsibility for this report particularly at the reaction when I've had the temerity to question their ability in the past.

Click to expand...

Were they born and educated in the County - NFN.

In 2009 while researching the status of Stonechats in the county, I discovered what served as the archive of submissions to the county bird recorder was kept in a private house. The house owner kindly gave me access to the contents which were hand-written cards filed literally in shoe boxes with as far as I could ascertain, no special provision made for their safety.

I have no idea if this "relaxed" attitude to record keeping remains to this day but if so, it may help explain the embarrassing error on the spine of the Norfolk Bird and Mammal Report 2018.

crapbirder said:

Find it hard to have any sympathy with whoever has responsibility for this report particularly at the reaction when I've had the temerity to question their ability in the past.

Click to expand...

Mark Batten said:

Were they born and educated in the County - NFN.

Click to expand...

crapbirder said:

In 2009 while researching the status of Stonechats in the county, I discovered what served as the archive of submissions to the county bird recorder was kept in a private house. The house owner kindly gave me access to the contents which were hand-written cards filed literally in shoe boxes with as far as I could ascertain, no special provision made for their safety.

I have no idea if this "relaxed" attitude to record keeping remains to this day but if so, it may help explain the embarrassing error on the spine of the Norfolk Bird and Mammal Report 2018.

Click to expand...

In the past Norfolk's bird records were transcribed onto record cards, batches of which were then sent to those drafting the systematic list and then returned. This method of recording continued for quite a while, resulting in a huge amount of boxes of records, which as you say are currently kept at the private residence of a prominent Norfolk birder and can be consulted by those researching Norfolk's birds by prior arrangement as you have done. I have suggested that there should be an agreement that in the future the records should pass to the archive centre as part of the NBIS archive, and NBIS are also happy for that to happen. From 2008 the Norfolk records are computerised.

The spelling error on the spine is unfortunate, but is just that - an accidental typing of an extra letter. The report had been delayed at the printers and the proofs were checked in a hurry, and as a result a few errors that might otherwise have been noticed were not. Generally the feedback on the layout and articles in the report has been positive, and it is the written content that I would suggest people focus on rather than the extra letter, prior grievances or the home county of any of the team associated with the report.

James Emerson said:

In the past Norfolk's bird records were transcribed onto record cards, batches of which were then sent to those drafting the systematic list and then returned. This method of recording continued for quite a while, resulting in a huge amount of boxes of records, which as you say are currently kept at the private residence of a prominent Norfolk birder and can be consulted by those researching Norfolk's birds by prior arrangement as you have done. I have suggested that there should be an agreement that in the future the records should pass to the archive centre as part of the NBIS archive, and NBIS are also happy for that to happen. From 2008 the Norfolk records are computerised.

The spelling error on the spine is unfortunate, but is just that - an accidental typing of an extra letter. The report had been delayed at the printers and the proofs were checked in a hurry, and as a result a few errors that might otherwise have been noticed were not. Generally the feedback on the layout and articles in the report has been positive, and it is the written content that I would suggest people focus on rather than the extra letter, prior grievances or the home county of any of the team associated with the report.

Click to expand...

Neither criticism, nor folnking about, will be tolerated. :t:

John