Post by Gord on Nov 3, 2017 20:11:40 GMT -8
I've been intending, for quite some time, to share some of the FAQ's of eBird that I come across being an eBird reviewer for the Fraser Valley. It is my hope this will help those who use eBird or encourage more use of it. Many already follow what I'm about to share but I am by no means intending to call out anyone with my efforts who may not.
I thought I would start with some insight behind the flagged records of rare or high counts of species. Most users will have experienced having some species in their checklists being 'flagged' requesting more details for their sighting.
First question is, why flag? The goal behind the flagging it to catch mistakes in identification or number of birds recorded. We've all made identification errors no matter how seasoned and experienced. It's also easy to accidentally hit an extra 0 when intending to put down 10 of a certain species. The end goal is to try and get as good of data as possible in this valuable citizen science-led initiative. If a bird is out of season or range, it's important to track these accurately. No less important is tracking more common species in high numbers.
What to do when a species is flagged? Flagged doesn't mean it's wrong so please do not feel uneasy when flagged pops up or I send an email asking for more details. Use it as a prompt to first double check what you're submitting and then to provide some details on it. Photographs are great if possible of course. But field observations are just fine too. Avoid providing supporting details of a flagged species by saying "Perched in a tree by the trail" or, "I know this species well". While both statements are true (and been done in the past by yours truly), it doesn't do much in the spirit of documentation. Even if a mundane species, do please consider adding a few details of the bird that makes it certain to someone else who's reading it that's indeed what you saw.
Likewise for high counts of a species. I have deliberately set the filter conservatively to catch typos. There will be times where it's common to find a high number of a species. Here is where it's great if the comment line it says "careful count of 405 trumpeter swans" (Major kudos to you for carefully counting 405 swans!
) or "count of 400 trumpeter swans estimated by counting by groups of 10".
Keep in mind the dependability of the data for future generations. At the moment the 'experienced birder's of good repute' are well-known in the birding community. But, in 100 years when people look back at data they might not necessarily be able to use said observers experience to provide confidence in data accuracy. This is one reason why providing some details is so important. I have used eBird for other projects over the years and I can say even now with eBird database relatively recent to have come across things that make me wonder. They might very well be accurate but a few simple comments from the observer would have made all the difference for me and the project I'm working on that is relying on the data to help draw a picture of a specie's growth or decline in numbers.
Second is why are some common species flagged? Clark's Nutcracker is probably a good example as any. You may have returned from Manning Park and had Clark's Nutcrackers perched on your head all day begging for handouts. As you innocently input your data into eBird said nutcracker is flagged and that seems quite odd. The reason for this is that the filters for the Fraser Valley checklist region encompass the whole region. Nutcrackers are pretty much restricted to the eastern part of the checklist area. Birds west of that are notable and should be confirmed as such and perhaps not accidentally misidentified as Grey Jay who are much more widespread. Again, someone studying range expansion or reduction in nutcracker range would want to be confident in the outlying records. While records from known nutcracker range are accepted at face value, I might seek more input for ones outside of this range. This applies to several species that may seem mundane on the small-scale but on the large-scale level having some verification in place is important so this is why I've set the filters on the conservative side. But this is done with care as I do not want to 'burn out' eBird users with an overload of requests for more information either. I hope I have set a good balance for it and also hope users understand why and how this does help with improving the quality of not only their own data but eBird's data overall.
Any questions or feedback please do ask. I will share some more on different eBird topics in the near future.
Thanks for reading and thanks even more to those who use eBird!
I thought I would start with some insight behind the flagged records of rare or high counts of species. Most users will have experienced having some species in their checklists being 'flagged' requesting more details for their sighting.
First question is, why flag? The goal behind the flagging it to catch mistakes in identification or number of birds recorded. We've all made identification errors no matter how seasoned and experienced. It's also easy to accidentally hit an extra 0 when intending to put down 10 of a certain species. The end goal is to try and get as good of data as possible in this valuable citizen science-led initiative. If a bird is out of season or range, it's important to track these accurately. No less important is tracking more common species in high numbers.
What to do when a species is flagged? Flagged doesn't mean it's wrong so please do not feel uneasy when flagged pops up or I send an email asking for more details. Use it as a prompt to first double check what you're submitting and then to provide some details on it. Photographs are great if possible of course. But field observations are just fine too. Avoid providing supporting details of a flagged species by saying "Perched in a tree by the trail" or, "I know this species well". While both statements are true (and been done in the past by yours truly), it doesn't do much in the spirit of documentation. Even if a mundane species, do please consider adding a few details of the bird that makes it certain to someone else who's reading it that's indeed what you saw.
Likewise for high counts of a species. I have deliberately set the filter conservatively to catch typos. There will be times where it's common to find a high number of a species. Here is where it's great if the comment line it says "careful count of 405 trumpeter swans" (Major kudos to you for carefully counting 405 swans!
) or "count of 400 trumpeter swans estimated by counting by groups of 10". Keep in mind the dependability of the data for future generations. At the moment the 'experienced birder's of good repute' are well-known in the birding community. But, in 100 years when people look back at data they might not necessarily be able to use said observers experience to provide confidence in data accuracy. This is one reason why providing some details is so important. I have used eBird for other projects over the years and I can say even now with eBird database relatively recent to have come across things that make me wonder. They might very well be accurate but a few simple comments from the observer would have made all the difference for me and the project I'm working on that is relying on the data to help draw a picture of a specie's growth or decline in numbers.
Second is why are some common species flagged? Clark's Nutcracker is probably a good example as any. You may have returned from Manning Park and had Clark's Nutcrackers perched on your head all day begging for handouts. As you innocently input your data into eBird said nutcracker is flagged and that seems quite odd. The reason for this is that the filters for the Fraser Valley checklist region encompass the whole region. Nutcrackers are pretty much restricted to the eastern part of the checklist area. Birds west of that are notable and should be confirmed as such and perhaps not accidentally misidentified as Grey Jay who are much more widespread. Again, someone studying range expansion or reduction in nutcracker range would want to be confident in the outlying records. While records from known nutcracker range are accepted at face value, I might seek more input for ones outside of this range. This applies to several species that may seem mundane on the small-scale but on the large-scale level having some verification in place is important so this is why I've set the filters on the conservative side. But this is done with care as I do not want to 'burn out' eBird users with an overload of requests for more information either. I hope I have set a good balance for it and also hope users understand why and how this does help with improving the quality of not only their own data but eBird's data overall.
Any questions or feedback please do ask. I will share some more on different eBird topics in the near future.
Thanks for reading and thanks even more to those who use eBird!
