Changes in how Ebird treats non-natives (1 Viewer)

[01101001]

So many open internet-based, volunteer-driven have benefitted from increased cooperation with their end users; why wouldn't eBird do just that by allowing some form of direct cooperation with regional reviewers instead of shunting all types of messages, be it requests for help or reports of mistakes, to the headquarters, where they get sucked into the bereaucratic quagmire never to be seen again? I am glad that such a scheme exists for disputing IDs based on photos attached to checklists, but, for me, that's not enough. Wikipedia, for example, gives ordinary users, even non-users, much more leeway, and, for those who don't want to edit themselves, there is an option to report a mistake for further correction (not available in English Wikipedia, I'm afraid, but it's present in fifteen other language editions). And if current regional reviewers are overladen as they seem to be, why not hire some new ones in addition? Surely, out of the many thousands of users, at least a few would be keen to participate, though perhaps part-time or only occasionally. It's not rocket science in most of the cases, and the more experienced reviewers would then have more time to focus on the important stuff like plausible reports of rarities. End of rant, I don't suppose people in here have any real influence upon eBird policy?

 

[THE_FERN]

So many open internet-based, volunteer-driven have benefitted from increased cooperation with their end users; why wouldn't eBird do just that by allowing some form of direct cooperation with regional reviewers instead of shunting all types of messages, be it requests for help or reports of mistakes, to the headquarters, where they get sucked into the bereaucratic quagmire never to be seen again? I am glad that such a scheme exists for disputing IDs based on photos attached to checklists, but, for me, that's not enough. Wikipedia, for example, gives ordinary users, even non-users, much more leeway, and, for those who don't want to edit themselves, there is an option to report a mistake for further correction (not available in English Wikipedia, I'm afraid, but it's present in fifteen other language editions). And if current regional reviewers are overladen as they seem to be, why not hire some new ones in addition? Surely, out of the many thousands of users, at least a few would be keen to participate, though perhaps part-time or only occasionally. It's not rocket science in most of the cases, and the more experienced reviewers would then have more time to focus on the important stuff like plausible reports of rarities. End of rant, I don't suppose people in here have any real influence upon eBird policy?

So many things which could be better in ebird with a bit of thought, starting with the data model. I suspect they rely on some commercial developers and have relatively little in-house technical expertise. Otherwise, open sourcing would surely help with many niggles such as:

• Less than perfect app ergonomics
• Why can't I download my own GPS tracks?
• Why do I have to nominate a location for a checklist if ebird already has the GPS track (i.e. should be able to automatically assign to hotspot [if that's what they're concerned about])?
• Why can I only edit uploaded checklists on the website (not via app)?
• Why is there no user-to-user anonymous messaging system?
• Why do many restrictions on questioning ids?

Etc etc

 

[Mysticete]

So many open internet-based, volunteer-driven have benefitted from increased cooperation with their end users; why wouldn't eBird do just that by allowing some form of direct cooperation with regional reviewers instead of shunting all types of messages, be it requests for help or reports of mistakes, to the headquarters, where they get sucked into the bereaucratic quagmire never to be seen again? I am glad that such a scheme exists for disputing IDs based on photos attached to checklists, but, for me, that's not enough. Wikipedia, for example, gives ordinary users, even non-users, much more leeway, and, for those who don't want to edit themselves, there is an option to report a mistake for further correction (not available in English Wikipedia, I'm afraid, but it's present in fifteen other language editions). And if current regional reviewers are overladen as they seem to be, why not hire some new ones in addition? Surely, out of the many thousands of users, at least a few would be keen to participate, though perhaps part-time or only occasionally. It's not rocket science in most of the cases, and the more experienced reviewers would then have more time to focus on the important stuff like plausible reports of rarities. End of rant, I don't suppose people in here have any real influence upon eBird policy?

A lot of this comes down to resources. Cornell is not for profit, and has limited financial resources to hire folks (I am very suspicious of the idea that much of anything is outsourced to third parties, but of course I would be open to hearing otherwise). As for the idea of hiring regional reviewers? What about everyone who volunteers? You can't pay some reviewers while not paying others, not unless you want the existing reviewers to mutiny.

 

[Mysticete]

So many things which could be better in ebird with a bit of thought, starting with the data model. I suspect they rely on some commercial developers and have relatively little in-house technical expertise. Otherwise, open sourcing would surely help with many niggles such as:

• Why is there no user-to-user anonymous messaging system?
• Why do many restrictions on questioning ids?

Etc etc

I consider this a plus, given how badly anonymously posting and reviewing has contributed to troll like behavior.

 

[Dan Miller]

• Why can I only edit uploaded checklists on the website (not via app)?

You can do this, in fact. Click the Checklists tab at the bottom of the screen, choose the list you want to edit, and the Edit link is at the lower right of the screen.

 

[THE_FERN]

I consider this a plus, given how badly anonymously posting and reviewing has contributed to troll like behavior.

What you mean in BF?

That's sort of system I'd like.

 

[01101001]

A lot of this comes down to resources. Cornell is not for profit, and has limited financial resources to hire folks (I am very suspicious of the idea that much of anything is outsourced to third parties, but of course I would be open to hearing otherwise). As for the idea of hiring regional reviewers? What about everyone who volunteers? You can't pay some reviewers while not paying others, not unless you want the existing reviewers to mutiny.

By hiring I meant recruiting more volunteers (perhaps with some more complex duties assigned only to those with enough experience). It's just my English acting up, and yesterday I was too tired to notice or correct it.

 

[Mysticete]

What you mean in BF?

That's sort of system I'd like.

I mean in life in general. Anonymous interactions in general just encourages a large segment of the population to just act like monsters. It's hard enough if you are new to birding in general, but if you get 10 lectures emailed to you about how you are clearly wrong about your identification, you are probably just going to cause people to quit ebirding. Let reviewers deal with that, and there are other means of conversing with birders in real life.

 

[01101001]

I consider this a plus, given how badly anonymously posting and reviewing has contributed to troll like behavior.

A non-anonymous system could be of some use, however, if only for flagging checklists that should have been assigned to a certain hotspot but haven't (because the hotspot didn't use to exist at the time or for some other reason) or those checklists that have some other issues (nocturnal checklists started more than 40 minutes before dawn and lasting throughout a significant part of the day, the travelling protocol used at sea more than two miles offshore, checklists utilising the pelagic protocol linked to pelagic hotspots, etc.), as only the original uploader can change the parameters of their checklist (I think).

 

[01101001]

perhaps with some more complex duties assigned only to those with enough experience

Two ways to make it work without compromising data quality.

1. Low-tier reviewers would only deal with the technicalities; all questions regarding bird ID would be forwarded to those who are better qualified. Right now all reviewers have to complete the eBird Essentials course anyway, so even those at the bottom of the ladder should know better. Every decision (either granting or denying a request) would have to be double-checked by a different low-tier reviewer to weed out any mistakes or attempts at trolling. The likelihood of two different users making the same error or conspiring together would be decidedly low.

2. Both technical and substantive matters would be first looked upon by low-tier reviewers, and any accepted requests would have to be cleared by top-tiers verifiers. In this model dubious rarity reports (those without relevant comments or those directly imported from Merlin regard for their soundness--both of which are a headache for the 'actual' reviewers now) would get short shrift and, perhaps, be sent back to claimants for correction. In terms of trolling/errors, no false negatives would occur, as every request would be verified by a more experienced reviewer anyway. If the initial low-tier verifier makes a mistake, the eBirder who originally submitted the request could resubmit it, and chances are that the said request would be processed by another person who would give it due consideration.

 

[THE_FERN]

I mean in life in general. Anonymous interactions in general just encourages a large segment of the population to just act like monsters.

Well sorry if you've experienced that in BF: I've not. And BF, at second most popular birding website in the world, is surely the benchmark here

Let reviewers deal with that, and there are other means of conversing with birders in real life.

I don't see why there can't be a system something like this:

• I question a sighting by pressing a button. A (generalised, automatic) message goes to the Lister asking them to check ID because it's been questioned
• Optionally, the system could ask me for a suggested ID, optionally backed up by a (e.g.) free text justification. (It would be possible to screen the latter for terms of abuse: not required for former as that would be restricted to ebird's list of taxa)
• Optionally, there could be a chance for the Lister to anonymously send me a message or asking for more info
• A notification gets sent to the reviewer, including outcome---for example if Lister doesn't revise ID

(If you've done ebird quizzes you'll know this system already exists... I guesstimate that 2-5% of images I saw were wrongly ID'd and I reported back as above)

Unclear to me what's wrong with this...

... I'd really value a BF-style email system too so I could ask people about interesting sightings. The crazy hotspot system (only) allows GPS tracks up ?40Km (why?), but even so that's quite a long walk for an interesting bird to get lost in

 

[01101001]

I question a sighting by pressing a button. A (generalised, automatic) message goes to the Lister asking them to check ID because it's been questioned

I, for one, would like to know how an Anonymous eBirder managed to spot three honey-buzzards and a goshawk at a hotspot near me which, to date, has only had sightings of common buzzards and a sparrowhawk. I would also be interested in how they arrived at a count of 25 tree pipits and managed to exclude possible repeats, especially given that the comment reads: '3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1'. Maybe they were just very skilled and lucky (that's, however, just one option).

 

[Mysticete]

Well sorry if you've experienced that in BF: I've not. And BF, at second most popular birding website in the world, is surely the benchmark here

I don't see why there can't be a system something like this:

• I question a sighting by pressing a button. A (generalised, automatic) message goes to the Lister asking them to check ID because it's been questioned
• Optionally, the system could ask me for a suggested ID, optionally backed up by a (e.g.) free text justification. (It would be possible to screen the latter for terms of abuse: not required for former as that would be restricted to ebird's list of taxa)
• Optionally, there could be a chance for the Lister to anonymously send me a message or asking for more info
• A notification gets sent to the reviewer, including outcome---for example if Lister doesn't revise ID

(If you've done ebird quizzes you'll know this system already exists... I guesstimate that 2-5% of images I saw were wrongly ID'd and I reported back as above)

Unclear to me what's wrong with this...

... I'd really value a BF-style email system too so I could ask people about interesting sightings. The crazy hotspot system (only) allows GPS tracks up ?40Km (why?), but even so that's quite a long walk for an interesting bird to get lost in

I mean how many people actually post here. I would be shocked if it the number of folks who check in here on a weekly basis and post is more than 100, at least in the context of the parts of this website I frequent. Forums are rapidly dying as a major means of communication. Contrast that with 700,000 plus active ebirders.

Sure, in some parts of the world you won't get much in the way of ebird messages. But I am imagining the poor novice in San Diego who mis-ids a bird, enters a checklist, goes to lunch, and then returns with 100 email alerts questioning him.

If the problem is you think some folks are messing up, the solution is more reviewers. not deputizing the anonymous public. as far as data goes, there are ways of factoring all of this into an analysis, so it doesn't bias results.

 

[THE_FERN]

I mean how many people actually post here. I would be shocked if it the number of folks who check in here on a weekly basis and post is more than 100, at least in the context of the parts of this website I frequent. Forums are rapidly dying as a major means of communication. Contrast that with 700,000 plus active ebirders.

Well hang on... Ebird is fundamentally based around a website. It's not the same as social media. And we're apparently bemoaning the lack of reviewers---which would imply not many people would bother to flag mis-ids

Sure, in some parts of the world you won't get much in the way of ebird messages.

Y. My feedback from help messages sent from UK is 1/4 I think, and that didn't give me the correct answer to a technical q about their own spec (I worked out the undocumented thing eventually...). The one reviewer who contacted me never bothered to reply (in either language)

But I am imagining the poor novice in San Diego who mis-ids a bird, enters a checklist, goes to lunch, and then returns with 100 email alerts questioning him.

He'd only get 1 per mis-id: why would there need to be more?

Afaik that's what happens with images

If the problem is you think some folks are messing up, the solution is more reviewers. not deputizing the anonymous public. as far as data goes, there are ways of factoring all of this into an analysis, so it doesn't bias results.

Well afaics the reviewers are anonymous with far too much access to my information (like my email address). I'm very unclear they're more qualified than other ebirders (is there an exam?), and certain the skill level varies.

... factor into an analysis...
Well mis-ids really affect some taxa much more than others to the extent that you can't disentangle those records. So no you can't factor that into an analysis: you just have to exclude those data.

 

[jurek]

Mistakes are what puts me off eBird and similar. Sometimes it is seems not an ID mistake, but a glitch in the name or place of observation.

I would really like an easy way to tag suspicious observations and misidentified photos. The local database is well moderated, but I still regularly see a photo with the wrong species. And there must be a way to batch, if there is a problem that one person might receive 100 messages of one wrong photo.

Forums are rapidly dying as a major means of communication.

What replaces them? I use a number of social media, but bird interest groups are usually short-lived and very difficult to find from outside. It can be more difficult to find proper bird groups on social media when travelling to France than to find the bird in the field!

 

[Mysticete]

Mistakes are what puts me off eBird and similar. Sometimes it is seems not an ID mistake, but a glitch in the name or place of observation.

I would really like an easy way to tag suspicious observations and misidentified photos. The local database is well moderated, but I still regularly see a photo with the wrong species. And there must be a way to batch, if there is a problem that one person might receive 100 messages of one wrong photo.



What replaces them? I use a number of social media, but bird interest groups are usually short-lived and very difficult to find from outside. It can be more difficult to find proper bird groups on social media when travelling to France than to find the bird in the field!

Depends on the area. In NY twitter was popular, while in much of the US it's facebook. I suspect also that people just are not communicating as much online via public messaging venues, since ebird has been allowed to kind of take over the rare bird alert reporting (something which I don't think it does a great job with honestly). I had a whole thread on here sometime ago bemoaning the balkanization of rare bird information.

 

[01101001]

the problem with the status of pigeons

Thankfully, both issues have now been solved.

No, wait, they haven't, and it's a disgrace.

 

[THE_FERN]

Here's a good one. Blue-winged goose is introduced to Ethiopia, not native there as everyone thought:

blue-winged goose

Please ebird stop this nonsense !

 

[raymie]

Here's a good one. Blue-winged goose is introduced to Ethiopia, not native there as everyone thought:

blue-winged goose

Please ebird stop this nonsense !

This one is actually a big deal. Try contacting Cornell about this one!

 

[Maffong]

Here's a good one. Blue-winged goose is introduced to Ethiopia, not native there as everyone thought:

blue-winged goose

Please ebird stop this nonsense !

You realise that most of these mistakes were already in the data base prior to the changes, they're only becoming visible now through this "nonsense". So please ebird keep up this nonsense