John Cantelo
Well-known member
I've been discussing elsewhere which is an ideal bird guide for novice birders in the UK, a guide showing the core c300 (or more) UK species (in a good variety of plumages & poses) or one that limits itself to 150-200 species with fewer 'less confusing illustrations'.
I've never been very convinced by the argument that more options = greater confusion since I'd contend fewer options = more confusion. I believe it undersells the capacity of most people to learn. It ignores that it's when a bird/plumage isn't well covered (if at all), beginners are likely to make more mistakes by adopting a 'best fit' approach. Similarly, I believe most people are capable of intelligent reflection when they digest the fact that the bird that they think they've seen is rare or extremely unlikely.
I'd regard the 'simple' guide that sparked the debate which covers only 150 birds (largely in only 1-2 photos) and omits notorious pitfalls like Ruff (yet includes Black Woodpecker & other continental species) as worse than useless. Such a 'simple' approach also ignores that, with the advent of bird information services/internet, it's often easier for new birders to see rare or very unusual birds such guides do not cover than regular but scarce ones which they do (as these birds tend not to be reported).
It's a long time, though, since I was a beginner. So when you were a beginner (or perhaps you still are) did you find more comprehensive books confusing or were you more led astray by the confusingly simple?
I've never been very convinced by the argument that more options = greater confusion since I'd contend fewer options = more confusion. I believe it undersells the capacity of most people to learn. It ignores that it's when a bird/plumage isn't well covered (if at all), beginners are likely to make more mistakes by adopting a 'best fit' approach. Similarly, I believe most people are capable of intelligent reflection when they digest the fact that the bird that they think they've seen is rare or extremely unlikely.
I'd regard the 'simple' guide that sparked the debate which covers only 150 birds (largely in only 1-2 photos) and omits notorious pitfalls like Ruff (yet includes Black Woodpecker & other continental species) as worse than useless. Such a 'simple' approach also ignores that, with the advent of bird information services/internet, it's often easier for new birders to see rare or very unusual birds such guides do not cover than regular but scarce ones which they do (as these birds tend not to be reported).
It's a long time, though, since I was a beginner. So when you were a beginner (or perhaps you still are) did you find more comprehensive books confusing or were you more led astray by the confusingly simple?