Stop requiring archaic forms for rarities (1 Viewer)

[Tor Olsen]

As I've said, I perceive an unhealthy level of toxicity associated with the Irish body. And would just really rather avoid even the potential for that with any other body.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, all your complaints relate to the Irish committee/members/working practices? Then I´d suggest you do not by default transfer those grievances to all other RCs. It's entirely your choice to interact with any RC or not, but please refrain from suggesting such bodies and their members are guilty of allegations that has nothing to do with them.

I only wish it could be done in 21st century way and without typing excessive information into office documents.

I don't know where you've been birding or where you report your sightings, but at least in the countries I know best such systems already exist. It does however require you to register a user, which again.... wait for it.... require you to fill in a form .

As mentioned by others further upthread, a rarity record is not just about the species, date, and location. Other interesting info is number of birds, time of day, subspecies, age, sex, plumage, any rings/feather damage, any diagnostic features which may enable specific identification of this individual, behaviour, direction of flight, microhabitat, duration of observation, distance of observation etc, etc. Some of this info may be possible to extract from a photo, some of it may not be relevant. But then you can just skip those fields in the form.

Any national committee usually assess hundreds of reports every single year. All these reports are put into a database which soon accumulate to thousands of entries. To be able to link all info, documentation, comments, feedback etc. to the correct report and later retrieve it, a case file number will be required. You'll probably find the field for this case file number on each of your dreaded rarity report forms. You may argue that the committee themselves should fill in the form, but in addition to possibly losing interesting information related to the record, it also increases the workload of the committee, which again could lead to delays in the committees work and publishing.

In my view, spending a few minutes filling in a form is not such an overwhelming task as you make it sound like. But if you chose not to, that is entirely your choice, even though I personally think it's a shame that interesting records may potentially be lost for future reference. I'm sure all committees are open to constructive suggestions on how to improve the reporting, but also keep in mind that there are usually limited resources available.

 

[Pedro Ramalho]

Well, in Portugal the form is very simple, and online, and it's optional, a simple email
with the necessary information and photos/audio or a description are enough.

In Portugal, the tendency is if there are no photos, audio, video, the observer does not submit.

PRC Online Rarity form

INTRODUCTION A confirmation email from [email protected] will be sent to you when you finish. -To send any files (like images etc) it is best to attach the files as a Reply to the confirmation email. The submitted photos can be chosen to be published in the annual report of the committee (with...

docs.google.com

 

[01101001]

Here's the Polish form for ringed/banded birds (not necessarily rarities of any kind): https://ring.stornit.gda.pl/Stw.aspx, which--admittedly--could be worse, but there are so many fields to fill that very rarely vary between different birds, and you can't save a default template (except for the contact data, which are very conveniently remembered by the browser). Plus, in the mobile version, the text fields and font are really small, location services don't really work, and you can only submit a record photo via email. Logging in one bird takes around 10% off my battery, and I tend to encounter up to two-three ringed coots a visit (not always the same ones), so I'm often put off filling the form again and again.

 

[Helsinki Birder]

It's entirely your choice to interact with any RC or not, but please refrain from suggesting such bodies and their members are guilty of allegations that has nothing to do with them.

Which is something I haven't done.

This is twice now, where respondents have said I'm doing something I have not done, or putting words in my mouth.

...whilst simultaneously not even acknowledging the issue I did point out.

It's a bit strange...🤔

Owen

 

[Tor Olsen]

Which is something I haven't done.

This is twice now, where respondents have said I'm doing something I have not done, or putting words in my mouth.

...whilst simultaneously not even acknowledging the issue I did point out.

It's a bit strange...🤔

Owen

Poor discussion technique quoting my own previous replies but (delete the "may" if you like):

I acknowledge that you may have different experiences.

It may be down to language barriers. From my understanding of the English language, in the text I quoted in my last reply, you take bad experiences with one committee, and use it as an argument that the same shortcomings potentially existing within other similar bodies without founding this in any real-life experiences. I could probably make my case better in my native tongue, but doubt that would be any clearer for this audience.

It appears to me that you have no grudge with any other RCs than the Irish, and then there no point in continuing this discussion which was started on a more generic level.

 

[Helsinki Birder]

Poor discussion technique quoting my own previous replies but (delete the "may" if you like):


It may be down to language barriers. From my understanding of the English language, in the text I quoted in my last reply, you take bad experiences with one committee, and use it as an argument that the same shortcomings potentially existing within other similar bodies without founding this in any real-life experiences. I could probably make my case better in my native tongue, but doubt that would be any clearer for this audience.

It appears to me that you have no grudge with any other RCs than the Irish, and then there no point in continuing this discussion which was started on a more generic level.

No, it's as simple as getting a bad pint in a wetherspoons and perhaps not taking the risk of getting another bad pint in another wetherspoons elsewhere. 😉

I have no idea if rarity Committees elsewhere have similar issues...but I am really not interested in finding out. 🙂

Owen

 

[Trinovid]

My exact words, were he is promoting a racist conspiracy theory. These are not necessarily the same thing.
It is nonetheless, a very low bar in terms of how such bodies or their membership behave, to say they shouldn't be promoting conspiracy theories, racist or otherwise.
Call me old fashioned.

You've had some good points in the conversation, but this issue is not one of them. Now we're supposed to slice your words and think that accusations of "promoting a racist conspiracy theory" differs from being a racist. Absolutely "not necessarily the same thing", just as pointing over towards someone standing alone in a field doesn't necessarily mean you pointed at them.

This actually should never have been introduced to the thread and the best thing for the forum would be to back up and delete all references from our posts here. Do that and I'll do the same, then we can all go back to the subject in the title.

 

[Trinovid]

This is twice now, where respondents have said I'm doing something I have not done, or putting words in my mouth.

Sorry if we're getting anything wrong in your message, but it is no coincidence that both of us took some of it incorrectly, and being guilty of misinterpretation is differs greatly from putting words in someone else's mouth.

I'll say it again, the issues you have with a particular member or a different community should not have even been aired here. Without that content posted, none of this derail would have happened.

 

[Dyrlege]

Reading through this I believe I have a better understanding of why we have wars.

 

[Trinovid]

Reading through this I believe I have a better understanding of why we have wars.

It’s always been because of binoculars!

 

[jurek]

I recently filled several rarity forms online with just a species, date, place and a short comment: a well watched bird, see the photo for details. On the afterthought, I should have been more polite.

I think nobody pointed an important thing: sending a form, you vouch with your reputation that this is a wild bird seen at this time and place, not e.g. a nice jpg you downloaded from the internet or took on your holidays to Madeira. Some birders submitted fakes.

If your bird was a popular rarity, you may add nothing much to 100s of other photos. If you are one of few people who saw the bird, you can add at least location, time of day, behavior and length of observation. For the latest, a person taking digital photos knows better than a person relying on a memory.

Agreed, that rarities committees lost much of their original function - checking field marks, a skill no longer rare with guidebooks commonly available. Rarities committees increasingly deal with questions like the wild / escape origin of a rarity or how reliable is the observer / field conditions - questions they are arguably no better qualified to answer than an outside ornithologist.

And agreed, a paper form in a pdf is an inconvenience in the age of typing of smartphones.