Thanks for that; some responses below.
Whether there is more or less likelihood of the average birder seeing any/all of your 'missing' photos is neither here nor there, the book sets out to show all species seen in Britain and Ireland - which it pretty much does (and a bit more). Obviously within that, there will be species that most of us will never, ever see, but having the info in one place, just in case, makes the book worth having.
The decision to cover all species recorded is partly what I'm challenging: partly for exactly the reasons you list in your last paragraph. Who's to say, for example, that the next Pacific alcid that turns up will be one of the three shown? Or that the declining (and possibly never to be seen here again) Little Whimbrel (included) is a better candidate than the long-overdue Willet? If this were an attempt at an illustrated avifauna then fair enough, but it's intended as a field guide - at least I think it is - so the most appropriate way to evaluate it is on its usefulness in the field.
Where do you draw the line with regards hybrids etc? I'm more likely to see a Mallard x Shoveler than I am a Spectacled Warbler or an Eastern Kingbird. By your reasoning the former should be in the book. Same applies to plumages - we have Carrion Crows around here with white in the wings, should they be in the book (EDIT : I see you've already mentioned these)?
In my first post above, I outlined a process by which authors of books like this could prioritise their decisions. If you ask where to draw the line, I'd say that's a commercial decision: what I'm questioning is whether, wherever that line is drawn, it's more helpful to include lots of photos that surely fall well below the line, at the expense of lots of photos that fall well above it.
I suspect that space constraints (maybe adding extra pages would not have been cost-effective -adding £s to the cover price) will have dictated some of the decisions made.
But I'm not sure that inclusion of these extra photos would have added lots of extra pages/pounds. Take pick just a couple of examples of where space could have been used more efficiently: (a) Semipalmated Plover: the useful ID features on this species are on its head and its feet. If this entry were to be trimmed to just show those parts of the bird, about a quarter of page would be saved (b) Avocet and Black-winged Stilt - do such easy-to-identify species really need two whole pages? Multiply this up, and you free up tens of pages which could be filled with the omitted images.
Whether those are the 'right' decisions or not comes down to individual opinion. You have yours, I have mine, others will have their own. My suggestion of waiting for your fieldguide was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, though you have taken it as abuse, which is your choice.
I wouldn't go as far as to call it abuse; I just thought it wasn't a very constructive thing to say. You appeared to be saying that people should only be prepared to voice their opinions if they are favourable opinions. That's an opinion you're entitled to, but you're not entitled to try to shut people down if they disagree with you about it. How far do you go? Should people never complain to a service provider about poor service because they were trying really hard? Should people never criticise politicians because it's a really tough job?
It is easy to criticise other's work
Actually, no it isn't. It's easy to make poorly thought-out, ill-informed criticisms. Making carefully considered, constructive criticisms is a rare skill: you may not think I have that skill, but if you are suggesting that criticism isn't a valuable part of the creative process, then I couldn't disagree more.
