Absolutely! I'm glad you asked because that touches on another important
thing to keep in mind when assessing flagged reports. The filters are set
with the county as a whole in mind, and while that works great in general
(and it's the best eBird can do right now), it does not apply perfectly to
every park or section of the county. So if you know that a particular
species is likely to be present in higher numbers at a specific spot than
it is elsewhere in the county, your example comments are perfect. We even
have a set code to use when confirming those type of reports. Can you
imagine what would it be like if we didn't and it came time to review the
checklists from Hart-Miller and Poplar Islands?
It's impossible for any birder to have a detailed knowledge of every
locale, so the expertise of those who do bird those locales is always
welcome.
Thanks again,
Rob Ostrowski
Bowie, MD
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Bonnie Ott <Bonnieott...> wrote:
> This is very useful!
>
> I know my recent report of 22 Savannah was flagged ( I entered � in
> Goldenrod Swale in large loose group�). I knew they were dwindling and this
> was a good number. Is it useful to add comments that include ( expected to
> overwinter in small numbers) or (typical overwintering area) relying on
> observers past experience with an area and or species?
>
> Bonnie
>
>
> *From:* Robert Ostrowski <rjostrowski...>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 24, 2012 6:09 PM
> *To:* <mdbirding...> ; <bonnieott...>
> *Subject:* Re: [MDBirding] E-bird flagging details
>
> Hi Bonnie,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, because it's been something I've been meaning
> to comment on recently. If a report is flagged because it exceeds the
> number threshold (ex. 472 Savannah Sparrows when the filter is set to 50),
> then, like you said, we aren't really interested in hearing how you
> identified the bird, but rather how you arrived at that number. This lets
> us know that you didn't throw out a wild estimate on what would be a
> significant record, and it catches any typos that might've been overlooked.
>
> Some comments one might enter in this situation:
> 1. "126 on the north edge of the corn field, 100 near the old barn, and
> 272 in the harvested fields north of the road"
> 2. "Carefully counted over a six mile hike"
> 3. "Estimate of a seemingly ubiquitous bird." This type of comment would
> preferably accompany a conservative estimate.
> 4. "Exact count" Less informative but still acceptable. It shows you
> double or tripled checked the entry.
>
> You get the idea. Ultimately, I would say 99% of records flagged because
> of high counts get confirmed. They are either accompanied by the above
> comments, or it's obvious from the effort data that the number is not that
> significant (e.g. 30 Carolina Chickadees aren't significant on a seven mile
> hike, and we wouldn't need anymore information).
>
> Hope this helps. Let me know if there's more to this question that I
> didn't touch on.
>
> Rob Ostrowski
> Bowie, MD
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Bonnie Ott <Bonnieott...>wrote:
>
>> Bill, thanks so much for your informative post regarding e-bird. I
>> think of e-bird as a near miracle and wish it had been around 30 years ago
>> (oh the paper records I have!)
>>
>> I find I am most often flagged by numbers instead of species (most often
>> sparrows.....surprise surprise!) I am often at loss as to what to put in
>> the comments other than location. I know all sightings that are flagged are
>> helped by details. Other than ...�24 Savannahs in the goldenrod swale� I
>> really am not sure how to provide supportive details. They were very cute
>> may be true but not scientifically useful.
>>
>> Bonnie
>> --
>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Group 'Maryland & DC Birding'.
>> To view group guidelines or change email preferences, visit this group on
>> the web at http://www.mdbirding.com
>> Posts can be sent to the group by sending an email to
>> <mdbirding...>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
|