MICK SAUNT
Well-known member
Sacha
Only records submitted via the County Recorder(s) as outlined above are included in the county records database with no records taken directly from BirdTrack.
Regards
Mick
-
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.
Norfolk birding (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter Edward woodwood
- Start date
Sacha
Only records submitted via the County Recorder(s) as outlined above are included in the county records database with no records taken directly from BirdTrack.
Regards
Mick
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
Just seen my first two Swifts of the year over the garden in Gorleston this evening. Hopetully they will be nesting under the tiles next door as usual.
Ron
Ron
Tim P
Well-known member
Weekend highlights of the Norfolk birdrace 2106 here: https://hethersettbirdingblog.wordpress.com/about/ including travels as you would expect from round the county in aid of http://www.waderquest.org/
Irene Boston
Well-known member
Birdtrack
I too submit the majority of any sightings online through Birdtrack now, with anything else appropriate to RBBP, as I'm sure many others do. I doubt I'll have the time to duplicate everything so that's a shame but hey ho...
I too submit the majority of any sightings online through Birdtrack now, with anything else appropriate to RBBP, as I'm sure many others do. I doubt I'll have the time to duplicate everything so that's a shame but hey ho...
crapbirder
Well-known member
Assuming this decision is due to a data management problem then I suggest those who not unreasonably object to 'doubling up' on their data input, might be more sympathetic if the problem was explained.
shytorque
Member
Black Headeded Wagtail, Titchwell RSPB
On Bank Holiday Monday morning I was at home, expecting the delivery of a1.4x extender. I have just bought the new Canon SLR 7D mk2 with a cracking 100-400mm mk2 zoom and was itching to try it out.
I had a phonecall from my birding mate Steve Hack. This must be good I thought, he never phones this time of day unless he is out birding and has something good. He blurted that he was in Parrinder hide at Titchwell watching a Black Headed Wagtail.
"Expletive", I grabbed bins and camera bag and raced to Titchwell. I managed to get to Docking before receiving news that the bird had flown off west.
Mmmm, not good!
I arrived at Titchwell, contacting Steve he said he was up at the beach. I strolled along the main path and heard a very close Cetti's Wblr. I thought that this would be fantastic if it would show. I sat on a convenient bench and waited expectantly. Nothing, typical!
Up strolled Steve with a large grin and some derogatory comment about me becoming a photographer, (fair hit) and would I like to see some his Black Headed Wagtail (BHW) shots. He really knows how to rub the salt in.
Some pretty good shots I scrutenised his pics. The complete yellow throat and I discerned no white at bill base,(although they can have), Complete black head running far along nape, Wow, Cracking bird! Norfolk Birder Trevor Girling also pitched up and we chatted awhile exchanging news and banter.
Marsh Harrier activity over the reed bed attracted my attention so I started to rattle off a few shots.Trevor was just about to say his goodbyes. Taking me eye from the viewfinder I noticed a a small bird at distance coming towards us with a bounding flight. Bins up I made out it was a wagtail, then I started to discern more detail of yellow underparts, The bit what struck me was its dark head. Seconds later with its continued progress it was not dark, but black!
I commented to Trevor that I think I have the BHW. It landed on the fresh cut reeds just by the uncut edge. Trevor luckily had his scope , but my directions were so garbled (adreniline overload) I had take over from him and find it. Luckily it stayed put. Trevor meanwhile got the news out to birders, who had already left and to the bird info services. I kept the bird in the scope and gave those assembled a view. I even managed a few poor record shots so rubbish I won't post them here.
I suppose the reason I am writing this is, there is a moral in this tale somewhere. Or I am just a jammy git, who caught one up on a mate who is also a jammy git.
Cheers Simon
On Bank Holiday Monday morning I was at home, expecting the delivery of a1.4x extender. I have just bought the new Canon SLR 7D mk2 with a cracking 100-400mm mk2 zoom and was itching to try it out.
I had a phonecall from my birding mate Steve Hack. This must be good I thought, he never phones this time of day unless he is out birding and has something good. He blurted that he was in Parrinder hide at Titchwell watching a Black Headed Wagtail.
"Expletive", I grabbed bins and camera bag and raced to Titchwell. I managed to get to Docking before receiving news that the bird had flown off west.
Mmmm, not good!
I arrived at Titchwell, contacting Steve he said he was up at the beach. I strolled along the main path and heard a very close Cetti's Wblr. I thought that this would be fantastic if it would show. I sat on a convenient bench and waited expectantly. Nothing, typical!
Up strolled Steve with a large grin and some derogatory comment about me becoming a photographer, (fair hit) and would I like to see some his Black Headed Wagtail (BHW) shots. He really knows how to rub the salt in.
Some pretty good shots I scrutenised his pics. The complete yellow throat and I discerned no white at bill base,(although they can have), Complete black head running far along nape, Wow, Cracking bird! Norfolk Birder Trevor Girling also pitched up and we chatted awhile exchanging news and banter.
Marsh Harrier activity over the reed bed attracted my attention so I started to rattle off a few shots.Trevor was just about to say his goodbyes. Taking me eye from the viewfinder I noticed a a small bird at distance coming towards us with a bounding flight. Bins up I made out it was a wagtail, then I started to discern more detail of yellow underparts, The bit what struck me was its dark head. Seconds later with its continued progress it was not dark, but black!
I commented to Trevor that I think I have the BHW. It landed on the fresh cut reeds just by the uncut edge. Trevor luckily had his scope , but my directions were so garbled (adreniline overload) I had take over from him and find it. Luckily it stayed put. Trevor meanwhile got the news out to birders, who had already left and to the bird info services. I kept the bird in the scope and gave those assembled a view. I even managed a few poor record shots so rubbish I won't post them here.
I suppose the reason I am writing this is, there is a moral in this tale somewhere. Or I am just a jammy git, who caught one up on a mate who is also a jammy git.
Cheers Simon
Last edited:
willowgrouse
Well-known member
Don't think so Jim. As I understand it very few do. Maybe one of the BTO Birdtrack team can tell us?
Titchwell May 3rd
Today's highlights
Black headed wagtail - 1 still present on the reserve although very flighty and elusive. Seen twice on the cut reed area south of the Island Hide twice this afternoon
Hobby - 1 over reserve
Wheatear - 1 on saltmarsh
Greenshank - 1 on fresh marsh
Red kite - 1 west mid morning
Med gull - 4 west mid morning
Garganey - drake on the fresh marsh showing well from Parrinder Hide
Ring ouzel - female in horse paddock south of East Trail
Little ringed plover - 4 on fresh marsh
Common sandpiper - 1 on fresh marsh
Little stint - 1 still on fresh marsh
Paul
Today's highlights
Black headed wagtail - 1 still present on the reserve although very flighty and elusive. Seen twice on the cut reed area south of the Island Hide twice this afternoon
Hobby - 1 over reserve
Wheatear - 1 on saltmarsh
Greenshank - 1 on fresh marsh
Red kite - 1 west mid morning
Med gull - 4 west mid morning
Garganey - drake on the fresh marsh showing well from Parrinder Hide
Ring ouzel - female in horse paddock south of East Trail
Little ringed plover - 4 on fresh marsh
Common sandpiper - 1 on fresh marsh
Little stint - 1 still on fresh marsh
Paul
MICK SAUNT
Well-known member
Jim
Sorry to disappoint but there is no debate to be had here either heated or otherwise. The main reason that BirdTrack is not used by the county as the primary source of bird records for NBMR is, to put it bluntly, the data it produces is wholly unsuited for the production of a county report.
Let me immediately make it crystal clear that this is not the fault of BirdTrack since it was never designed to be used for that purpose. What it was designed for (among other things) was to gather bird records in bulk (I believe that it holds literally millions of records) and using software to ‘crunch the numbers’ to provide stats relating to, for example, population densities and distribution etc.
From the county recording viewpoint there are a number of issues with BirdTrack but the main one is the sheer volume of records held for individual species. While it is a case of the ‘more the merrier’ when applied to BirdTrack’s original remit, from the perspective of producing a county report it is exactly the opposite. Apologies in advance for the length of this note but I believe that the queries raised around the non-use of BirdTrack for the NBMR merits a detailed explanation.
It is worth noting that the decision to move from the existing recording system to BirdTrack was taken unilaterally without any form of consultation with the existing NBMR team. As someone who has had some experience of such changes (and what can go wrong) in the ‘real world’ I did some work on assessing what the implications might be of such a change. As a result, I was able to compare like-for-like outputs from both BirdTrack and our existing recording system for Blackbird and Red-breasted Flycatcher in respect of 2013.
While there were a number of issues with the BirdTrack RB Fly records including incomplete data, wrong location and duplicates the most striking problem was the number of records of Blackbird. Rather than bore you all with statistics, I have attached 2 files to this post.
Firstly there is the output of Blackbird records from Wildlife Recorder (the county’s recording system) which holds just 94 records. This relatively modest total is as a result of observers having ‘filtered’ their records to include only the most significant ones and a second ‘filtering’ by the inputters. Based on just these records the write up for the 2013 NBMR (bearing in mind space constraints within the systematic list) shows a mix of winter counts, return movement, (limited) breeding data and autumn arrival details.
Secondly there is the BirdTrack extract for the same year. Take a look. It holds nearly 6000 records. For one species. Note that I have removed any personal data to ensure of not falling foul of any Data Protection issues.Also I had to delete substantial amounts of data just to reduce it in size to get it into Birdforum!
I am reasonably proficient around data handling and using Excel and given enough time I am sure I could have edited it down to something more manageable. But why should I? And why should I have had to do the same for Song Thrush, Fieldfare, Redwing etc etc.
To give you some perspective around the volumes we are talking about, for ‘my’ species (Thrushes, Flycatchers, Shrikes and Crests), normally about 2000 records cover all of them. If you take a look at previous NBMRs you will see that from this total, each species has a reasonable write up given space constraints within the report.
The BirdTrack extracts for ‘my’ species for 2014 was >13,000 – totally unrealistic and unmanageable (and I say that as someone who is retired and has time spend to sort it out).
Everyone involved with the NBMR is a volunteer and are passionate about what they do but most have jobs and families (as well as being keen birders) and are not ‘experts’ at dealing with huge volumes of data. When the BirdTrack extracts for 2014 appeared in their ‘in tray’ most were not only stunned at the volume of records but were totally overwhelmed with many of them just saying ‘no way’ and sending the records back.
At this stage it became clear that bird recording in the county was peering over the edge of a precipice with the future of the NBMR in serious doubt. I think that most are aware of the changes that took place subsequently and thanks to the efforts of many (especially the observers who were prepared to resubmit their records for inclusion in the 2014 county database) the NBMR for 2014 appeared just a few weeks later than normal.
I am hoping that any reasonable person will now understand why the county has reverted to using their ‘own’ data and systems rather than BirdTrack.
I think it is worth saying that while BirdTrack does not provide direct input to our records, we do have a good two-way relationship with the BTO. For example, I believe that our RBBP reporting process is as good as any other county and we are also fortunate to have access to the Breeding Bird Survey data which we have begun to incorporate into the NMBR.
Finally, a plea to those birders who do use BirdTrack. Yes it is slightly inconvenient to have to submit your sightings twice but my (limited!) understanding is that it is quick and easy for you to extract the details as a single file which can then be sent to the County Recorder(s) as outlined in my original note.
Many thanks if you’ve managed to get this far!
Regards
Mick
PS: Jim - I am sure that BTO can supply you with a list of counties who use BirdTrack as the sole source of records for their annual reports.
Nick Moran
Well-known member
The BirdTrack team are aware of these issues and have spent considerable time discussing and addressing them with the people involved in producing the NBMR, and with some of the 1,200 or so BirdTrack users with records from Norfolk.
If you are a BirdTrack user with queries or concerns about the NBMR team's stance towards your data, please address these to Tony Leech (NNNS Chair) and Andy Stoddart (Norfolk Bird Report Editor). Tony's email can be found near the bottom of the NNNS Norfolk County Recorders page and you can contact Andy via his website.
If you have BirdTrack records for Norfolk and would like help manually extracting and filtering them for emailing to the NBMR team, see the online advice about how to use Explore My Records.
I have previously provided feedback on all the points Mick makes here in private emails. I felt that some of the points made here in public merited a public response so as to provide a more complete picture for anyone who wants it.
To be fair and accurate, this should read "wholly unsuited for the production of the NBMR in its current format". The attached image 'GreyWagtail' shows how data from BirdTrack are already being incorporated into County Bird Reports, in this case the North-East Wales Bird Report.
It is not necessary to take a one-by-one approach to records of common species. That approach works well for rare and scarce species but can seriously undermine what a Bird Report can achieve for common species. As shown by the North-East Wales Bird Report, metrics like the % of complete lists that feature each species provide summary information that is comparable year-on-year and adds to the report (without taking up much space).
Some of these metrics (e.g. % of complete lists featuring a species) are available automatically in the BirdTrack download for each county, thus taking zero processing time for volunteer data handlers. I also produced bespoke graphs of the weekly reporting rates of 5–6 common Norfolk species in 2014, as an example of something that might enhance the NBMR Species Accounts. These were turned down, though my offer to help produce similar in future remains open.
Where subjectivity (i.e. observer and inputter 'filtering') is part of data collection/submission, there's a danger of bias. For example, the thrush species with the most records in the Norfolk data base is Ring Ouzel, with more than 4x the number of records than there are for Blackbird, last I saw. At face value, this seems to give a very distorted picture of Norfolk's avifauna. Furthermore, what happens if Blackbird becomes the next Song Thrush (or worse still, Turtle Dove)? All those 'filtered out' Blackbird records might have helped track or even flag up a local decline.
Basic stats tell us that high counts are prone to bias depending on observer coverage. In other words, the more people out counting Blackbirds in a given autumn, the more likely it is that the 'outliers' (i.e. days/sites with very high counts) will be sampled. This means that any approach that relies on people submitting 'notable' counts is at serious risk from this flaw, as observer coverage varies over time. Going on to cherry-pick the highest counts from the records submitted compounds this problem.
Jim's question is below:
The answer to Jim's question is yes, the majority of UK county bird reports source material from BirdTrack. Very few county bird reports do not source any material from BirdTrack.
For other specific questions about the BirdTrack end of things, please email [email protected] and we'll do our best to help.
All the best
Nick
If you are a BirdTrack user with queries or concerns about the NBMR team's stance towards your data, please address these to Tony Leech (NNNS Chair) and Andy Stoddart (Norfolk Bird Report Editor). Tony's email can be found near the bottom of the NNNS Norfolk County Recorders page and you can contact Andy via his website.
If you have BirdTrack records for Norfolk and would like help manually extracting and filtering them for emailing to the NBMR team, see the online advice about how to use Explore My Records.
I have previously provided feedback on all the points Mick makes here in private emails. I felt that some of the points made here in public merited a public response so as to provide a more complete picture for anyone who wants it.
To be fair and accurate, this should read "wholly unsuited for the production of the NBMR in its current format". The attached image 'GreyWagtail' shows how data from BirdTrack are already being incorporated into County Bird Reports, in this case the North-East Wales Bird Report.
It is not necessary to take a one-by-one approach to records of common species. That approach works well for rare and scarce species but can seriously undermine what a Bird Report can achieve for common species. As shown by the North-East Wales Bird Report, metrics like the % of complete lists that feature each species provide summary information that is comparable year-on-year and adds to the report (without taking up much space).
Some of these metrics (e.g. % of complete lists featuring a species) are available automatically in the BirdTrack download for each county, thus taking zero processing time for volunteer data handlers. I also produced bespoke graphs of the weekly reporting rates of 5–6 common Norfolk species in 2014, as an example of something that might enhance the NBMR Species Accounts. These were turned down, though my offer to help produce similar in future remains open.
Where subjectivity (i.e. observer and inputter 'filtering') is part of data collection/submission, there's a danger of bias. For example, the thrush species with the most records in the Norfolk data base is Ring Ouzel, with more than 4x the number of records than there are for Blackbird, last I saw. At face value, this seems to give a very distorted picture of Norfolk's avifauna. Furthermore, what happens if Blackbird becomes the next Song Thrush (or worse still, Turtle Dove)? All those 'filtered out' Blackbird records might have helped track or even flag up a local decline.
Basic stats tell us that high counts are prone to bias depending on observer coverage. In other words, the more people out counting Blackbirds in a given autumn, the more likely it is that the 'outliers' (i.e. days/sites with very high counts) will be sampled. This means that any approach that relies on people submitting 'notable' counts is at serious risk from this flaw, as observer coverage varies over time. Going on to cherry-pick the highest counts from the records submitted compounds this problem.
Jim's question is below:
The answer to Jim's question is yes, the majority of UK county bird reports source material from BirdTrack. Very few county bird reports do not source any material from BirdTrack.
For other specific questions about the BirdTrack end of things, please email [email protected] and we'll do our best to help.
All the best
Nick
Attachments
Last edited:
sacha
Well-known member
Mick,
I appreciate that it must be a difficult and time consuming job. I say this from experience having been involved in the production and writing of bird reports for birding sites in London in the past.
Even small sites are very time consuming and involve a lot of data processing and data assessment.
To say 'why should you'? I may leave that for others to comment! But surely, the more data the easier it is to view a graph of say Redwing reports for Norfolk to be able to summarise peak arrivals and to compare that to previous years? To ignore the data as it is 'too much' seems to defeat the object.
I know this is a simplistic approach and I really do appreciate the amount of time and effort is huge and I am sure I am not alone in thanking you for putting your section together.
What is the objective of the report?
From a personal point of view, I embrace changes in technology. I will continue to report birds on apps like birdtrack and on the fantastic Norfolk Moths website as they are quick easy to use with my iPhone. For me, with a busy family and work life I want to be able to record birds quickly and then spend available free time enjoying birds / moths / birding / studying plumages and hopefully finding scarce and rare birds... Something with young children I am currently failing on but hope to change that as time goes on!
I will take the time to email the few relevant records that I feel should be known, (for example my local flock of Brambling building up throughout the winter to a peak of 70 birds last month).. Early or late dates and peak counts but will not have time to re write and submit all my data submitted (with ease and speed)
I will also take time to submit any description species.
I think it is a shame that the resources are not there for the best county for birds and birding .. Norfolk .. to be able to produce a report that uses all data available.
Times are changing fast
Sacha
MICK SAUNT
Well-known member
Nick
Many thanks for such a swift response.
I'm sure you won't mind me saying that for both of us this not our 'first rodeo' when it comes to the issues we both know are intrinsic to the way BirdTrack works in the real world.
The reason for my post was that a number of people have questioned why we do not use their BirdTrack records and I believe I have answered that question openly and honestly but that is for them to decide. If they still chose not to submit their records directly to the NBMR that is a pity but there is nothing I can do about that.
I am not sure if I quite understand your comment about observers contacting Tony or Andy regarding the 'stance' we have taken with BirdTrack records. Without sounding too much like a broken record our 'stance' is exactly as outlined in my two previous posts and in the 'Notes for Contributors' in the last NBMR.
I note that in your final comment you have indicated that most county reports source material from BirdTrack (as do we via the BBS) but a more telling statistic would be to tell us how many reports source their data solely from BirdTrack (which is clearly the road you would like to see the NBMR travel).
Anyway, weather looking brilliant so off to do something good like finding some birds.
Regards
Mick
MICK SAUNT
Well-known member
Sacha
Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to comment further.
As someone who has been involved in producing a bird report you will appreciate that there is a huge amount of data 'out there' and the difficulty has always been to decide which records appear in print.
Any bird report by its very nature is a 'condensed' version of everything that happened in the county in the previous year (some people have compared reports to a 'greatest hits' album). There will always be a place for graphs, distribution maps and tables but ultimately the vast majority of any systematic list will be the text. The path the county has chosen is that we are totally in control of what goes into the county database (and subsequently the county archive) with all checking, vetting and filtering done 'up front. The hard work done at the input stage reaps rewards since the outputs are both manageable and credible.
Unfortunately, BirdTrack works the other way around and as someone who has been heavily involved with IT in a previous life is completely contrary to the basic rules of data processing. This means that all the work is required to clean the outputs into something useable.
We should not lose sight of the fact that we are not in competition with BirdTrack. It does what it does and we do what we do - it's a simple as that!
Anyway, if our paths do cross in the field, happy to have a chat!
Regards
Mick
So, in short Mick, there is a debate to be had, heated or cooled!
I thank-you for your detailed comments, yourself and Nick.
Interesting that in many counties- the majority- Birdtrack and the County Recorders work together.
I am not the best at submitting my records full stop, but having thought about this I will try to 'double up' much like Sacha describes above (significant local counts etc), if Teal records at Suringham are welcomed!
Cheers,
Jim.
I thank-you for your detailed comments, yourself and Nick.
Interesting that in many counties- the majority- Birdtrack and the County Recorders work together.
I am not the best at submitting my records full stop, but having thought about this I will try to 'double up' much like Sacha describes above (significant local counts etc), if Teal records at Suringham are welcomed!
Cheers,
Jim.
Nick Moran
Well-known member
No probs Mick, though I have a number of pressing commitments over the next few days so I'm unlikely to be able to keep it up.
Historically, some records were taken from BirdTrack by Dave and Jacquie Bridges, via the free, unrestricted access available to all County Recorders. There was then a short period to which you allude in a previous post when there was a move by the subsequent County Recorder towards using BirdTrack as the primary (not sole) way of submitting and storing Norfolk bird records. This move generated discontent, one consequence of which was a change of personnel back to the Bridges and a change in policy to no data whatsoever being taken from BirdTrack. Given the steady – then rather rapid – progress towards using BirdTrack data, this U-turn understandably generated confusion among observers. I don't know of any attempt to explain the reasoning behind the change until your post of 30 April, though I may have missed something.
We will continue to direct BirdTrack users who have queries or concerns about the NBMR's position to the NNNS Chair and the Bird Report Editor.
I'm pleased that the NBMR decided to incorporate BBS results following my suggestion to do so and the examples of some basic analysis I did using Suffolk BBS data, that I sent to the NBMR team last year. However, there's an underlying misunderstanding in what you say here, Mick: while BirdTrack and Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data are held in the same database, they are not one and the same thing.
For information, 2014 (the latest year for which BBS data are currently published) saw 97 1-km BBS squares surveyed in Norfolk, yielding 15,588 records. During the same year, BirdTrack records were submitted from 2,192 distinct grid references in Norfolk – the vast majority at the 1-km level – generating 443,561 records.
In 2015, the Norfolk totals were 15,867 BBS records and 491,661 BirdTrack records.
I disagree. Most counties still receive at least some data through more traditional routes, and rely on individuals or teams of data inputters to enter or reformat these records to fit the county database. Unsurprisingly then, there are very few counties where BirdTrack is the sole source of data. That said, counties like (and not restricted to) Bedfordshire do strongly encourage observers to submit via BirdTrack, as that cuts out the labour-intensive steps of inputting and reformatting data received through non-standardised routes.
This is wholly untrue, Mick.
The route I'd like to see the NBMR travel is for it to make some use of BirdTrack data, particularly for common birds. It can be very hard for Bird Report writers to produce consistent, meaningful accounts for common species. Anything that can be done to enhance these accounts seems like a good thing, particularly if it requires no extra effort (e.g. the BirdTrack reporting rates, which are provided automatically).
Finally, on a personal note, I logged 17,664 records in BirdTrack from 64 locations in Norfolk last year (see attached). I do not feel qualified to decide which of these are of value to the NBMR (see comment in my previous post about what will be the next Song Thrush/Turtle Dove). My choice is to put them in one safe database, accessible to the County Recorders, and leave others to decide if/how to use them.
Sorry I won't have time to provide further responses on this here in the near future but I hope this clears up a few things.
Nick
Attachments
Last edited:
crapbirder
Well-known member
Norfolk Records.
Absorbing flow of point and counter point thus far despite the topic claimed not to be up for debate.
May I pick up on one point Mick Saunt makes, "everyone involved with the NBMR is a volunteer" - my understanding is that the Editor receives a fee and as I recall, the amount is shown in the NNNS annual financial statement. If so and with all due respect to Mick Saunt, why is the Editor not making the case on behalf of NNNS the publishers of the county report.
Absorbing flow of point and counter point thus far despite the topic claimed not to be up for debate.
May I pick up on one point Mick Saunt makes, "everyone involved with the NBMR is a volunteer" - my understanding is that the Editor receives a fee and as I recall, the amount is shown in the NNNS annual financial statement. If so and with all due respect to Mick Saunt, why is the Editor not making the case on behalf of NNNS the publishers of the county report.
had a few nice fly overs in the last couple of days. On Monday I had a hoopoe fly up from the side of the A47 and over the road near Narborough (phoned it out but was on the way to a job so couldn't look for it at the time). Spent the day working at Sandringham and had a red kite drifting about for much of the morning. Then yesterday had my first for the year of swift and hobby over the village (near Swaffham).
willowgrouse
Well-known member
Bird Recording
There are clearly a number of issues addressed in previous discussion on this forum on this topic (thanks to all who supplied information, most especially those who offered it voluntarily and without remuneration).
However, one thing in particular puzzles me, and within that issue is perhaps the reasoning for the gulf in opinions on this topic.
Without wishing to 'take sides', as it appears likely that a combination of traditional recording techniques and some data for some species extracted from Birdtrack may meet requirements, I move on to the puzzling issue...
The grey wagtail 'page' as supplied by Nick Moran as an example of how Birdtrack data is available and being used in County Bird Reports looks very smart and professional, but... what does it actually tell us?
(a) the species is resident in both Flints and Denbs (except apparently in June in Flints)
(b) there is apparently an overwintering population but there is no precise information on numbers and distribution or locations (the maps simply show distribution of all records)
(c) at least three pairs bred in Flints, at least one of which produced 4 juvs
(d) at least one pair bred in Denbs
(e) most records refer to 1-2 birds
That appears to be all.
Therefore you could say that 178 records have actually produced very little of use, and quite frankly the author has excelled to produce an impressive page from so little useful data.
I fear that if you extrapolate 5-6 useful records out of 178 for 'grey wagtail' in two Welsh counties not famed for having a dense population of active birders, or a huge number of birds, you may well end up with exactly what Mick Saunt describes as a major problem for Norfolk bird recording, say 50-60 useful records out of 1,780, or 250 out of 7,500. I see the problem.
In the case of the author of the page in question, he may well have had virtually nothing other than Birdtrack records to work with, and this appears to be exactly what Mick Saunt is trying to guard against. The alternative point of view (also apparently that expressed by Mick Saunt) is that a few 'selected' breeding notes, coastal passage notes and details of wintering birds at sewage treatment works, towns, etc., is far more useful than 178 records that tell very little.
There is no value in listing how many 'Birdtrack lists' the species appears on as this is merely a reflection of where birders go birding, and not how many birds there are. For example I could go to Cley 100 times in a year and see avocets, then the following year I could go to the Brecks 90 times (not seeing avocet) and Titchwell 10 times (seeing avocet) - does this reflect a 90% decline in avocets? Of course not. This method of recording is useless to anybody other than the individual who keeps a 'daylist' of birds seen on each trip into the field (and this is not a criticism of those who chose to do just that).
There is also not much use in listing how many 1km squares this species was recorded in as there will be virtually no variation year-on-year in this as rivers, lakes and sewage treatment works tend not to move.
Declines (or indeed increases) in breeding species are detected by submission and recording of comprehensive sets of breeding data, not by trending programmes. If you want to make sure that 'blackbird is not the next turtle dove', the best way is to go out and survey your local woodland and urban gardens year-on-year and record the data for posterity.
I sense that the feeling is that Norfolk bird recording methods are outdated and modern technology is to be fully embraced. I'm not so sure, not all change is good, particularly if it leads to a lowering of standards and quality. In fact it is my understanding that the recording practices are up-to-date in computer recording methods, albeit not available on smartphones.
It makes sense to me that the county database should be accurate and full of useful information thus producing data for the composition of a county bird report that can be trusted and continues to match the extremely high standards set in the years when it won awards in the now defunct British Birds competition.
There are clearly a number of issues addressed in previous discussion on this forum on this topic (thanks to all who supplied information, most especially those who offered it voluntarily and without remuneration).
However, one thing in particular puzzles me, and within that issue is perhaps the reasoning for the gulf in opinions on this topic.
Without wishing to 'take sides', as it appears likely that a combination of traditional recording techniques and some data for some species extracted from Birdtrack may meet requirements, I move on to the puzzling issue...
The grey wagtail 'page' as supplied by Nick Moran as an example of how Birdtrack data is available and being used in County Bird Reports looks very smart and professional, but... what does it actually tell us?
(a) the species is resident in both Flints and Denbs (except apparently in June in Flints)
(b) there is apparently an overwintering population but there is no precise information on numbers and distribution or locations (the maps simply show distribution of all records)
(c) at least three pairs bred in Flints, at least one of which produced 4 juvs
(d) at least one pair bred in Denbs
(e) most records refer to 1-2 birds
That appears to be all.
Therefore you could say that 178 records have actually produced very little of use, and quite frankly the author has excelled to produce an impressive page from so little useful data.
I fear that if you extrapolate 5-6 useful records out of 178 for 'grey wagtail' in two Welsh counties not famed for having a dense population of active birders, or a huge number of birds, you may well end up with exactly what Mick Saunt describes as a major problem for Norfolk bird recording, say 50-60 useful records out of 1,780, or 250 out of 7,500. I see the problem.
In the case of the author of the page in question, he may well have had virtually nothing other than Birdtrack records to work with, and this appears to be exactly what Mick Saunt is trying to guard against. The alternative point of view (also apparently that expressed by Mick Saunt) is that a few 'selected' breeding notes, coastal passage notes and details of wintering birds at sewage treatment works, towns, etc., is far more useful than 178 records that tell very little.
There is no value in listing how many 'Birdtrack lists' the species appears on as this is merely a reflection of where birders go birding, and not how many birds there are. For example I could go to Cley 100 times in a year and see avocets, then the following year I could go to the Brecks 90 times (not seeing avocet) and Titchwell 10 times (seeing avocet) - does this reflect a 90% decline in avocets? Of course not. This method of recording is useless to anybody other than the individual who keeps a 'daylist' of birds seen on each trip into the field (and this is not a criticism of those who chose to do just that).
There is also not much use in listing how many 1km squares this species was recorded in as there will be virtually no variation year-on-year in this as rivers, lakes and sewage treatment works tend not to move.
Declines (or indeed increases) in breeding species are detected by submission and recording of comprehensive sets of breeding data, not by trending programmes. If you want to make sure that 'blackbird is not the next turtle dove', the best way is to go out and survey your local woodland and urban gardens year-on-year and record the data for posterity.
I sense that the feeling is that Norfolk bird recording methods are outdated and modern technology is to be fully embraced. I'm not so sure, not all change is good, particularly if it leads to a lowering of standards and quality. In fact it is my understanding that the recording practices are up-to-date in computer recording methods, albeit not available on smartphones.
It makes sense to me that the county database should be accurate and full of useful information thus producing data for the composition of a county bird report that can be trusted and continues to match the extremely high standards set in the years when it won awards in the now defunct British Birds competition.
HarassedDad
Norfolk County Butterfly Recorder
From the Blackbird BT data, Distribution of records as a map and number of reports per day over the year. Took 18 minutes including downloading the data from here. And that's by hand - to do this for a lot of species I'd take a couple of hours to knock up some macros and then let Excel do the lot overnight - half a million records is not a lot of data. If you wanted to do some analysis on the data - or produce a little chart for each species - for the next report I'll happily write you some code.
I don't want to take sides but some observations:
If birdtrack is exporting these as "Norfolk" there's some interesting GIS boundaries at work in TL87.
Yes an individual may report Avocet 100 times one year and only 10 times the next, but in aggregate many reporters will report the same number of Avocets each year because for every one who switches from Cley to the Brecks there is likely to be someone who goes in the other direction. And most people don't switch dramatically. So if the records of Avocets drop suddenly one year there is likely to be an actual drop in Avocets. (if you're working with 500,000 records that is - if you only have 15,000 it don't mean a thing - unless it's a genuinely random sample and not a selection)
The location of Sewage works doesn't vary - but if the reports from sewage works suddenly stop appearing then either the water company is chasing birders off or something is happening to birds at sewage works. And you won't know if you're not tracking it. People don't report that they didn't see something - you need complete lists to pick up that something is missing and not simply being not reported. Which is why I always tell my recorders to put every species down, "even the whites".
An individual years' data is relatively unimportant. What matters is trends over many years. Are sightings of Sand Martins getting earlier than they were? You need to compare this years data to that of the last 30 years - and the larger the data set you have the better.
On the other hand, I sympathize with the points about GIGO - There's a worrying trend to believe that mobile phone apps will produce conservation data on the cheap - that you can stick an app out, get some snaps on a mobile phone and know all you need to know about the distribution and conservation status of every taxa. It suits a cost starved DEFRA, and it comforts large conservation bodies who don't want to face the fact that the number of people that can reliably id wildlife to species level gets fewer every year. There's no substitute for human knowledge in interpreting and (crucially) rejecting data. But equally you don't want people with that knowledge to be wasting time retyping data into machine readable form. Computers and data entry apps are useful tools, but they're no substitute for a knowledgeable human when it comes to interpreting and analyzing the results of all that data.
I don't want to take sides but some observations:
If birdtrack is exporting these as "Norfolk" there's some interesting GIS boundaries at work in TL87.
Yes an individual may report Avocet 100 times one year and only 10 times the next, but in aggregate many reporters will report the same number of Avocets each year because for every one who switches from Cley to the Brecks there is likely to be someone who goes in the other direction. And most people don't switch dramatically. So if the records of Avocets drop suddenly one year there is likely to be an actual drop in Avocets. (if you're working with 500,000 records that is - if you only have 15,000 it don't mean a thing - unless it's a genuinely random sample and not a selection)
The location of Sewage works doesn't vary - but if the reports from sewage works suddenly stop appearing then either the water company is chasing birders off or something is happening to birds at sewage works. And you won't know if you're not tracking it. People don't report that they didn't see something - you need complete lists to pick up that something is missing and not simply being not reported. Which is why I always tell my recorders to put every species down, "even the whites".
An individual years' data is relatively unimportant. What matters is trends over many years. Are sightings of Sand Martins getting earlier than they were? You need to compare this years data to that of the last 30 years - and the larger the data set you have the better.
On the other hand, I sympathize with the points about GIGO - There's a worrying trend to believe that mobile phone apps will produce conservation data on the cheap - that you can stick an app out, get some snaps on a mobile phone and know all you need to know about the distribution and conservation status of every taxa. It suits a cost starved DEFRA, and it comforts large conservation bodies who don't want to face the fact that the number of people that can reliably id wildlife to species level gets fewer every year. There's no substitute for human knowledge in interpreting and (crucially) rejecting data. But equally you don't want people with that knowledge to be wasting time retyping data into machine readable form. Computers and data entry apps are useful tools, but they're no substitute for a knowledgeable human when it comes to interpreting and analyzing the results of all that data.
