Hi Everyone,
Here are some follow-on thoughts based on feedback I've received following my earlier response. It's interesting that most people emphasizing concerns are writing about their own records not being validated (or validated quickly enough). I've wondered if we just haven't gotten the terminology right yet (I strongly prefer "confirmed" over "validated"). No one would balk if there were a "Photographed" column that was marked "No" when you provided no photos. Why be upset when a reviewer can't confirm a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher based on the comments "Seen well"? I've thought about this, and I think the more noble side of it is simply not wanting our efforts to be in vain. I assure you're they're not.
Whenever we submit an unusual record, it is always saved and available for future research. Just like a reviewer not confirming a flagged report can never remove it from your lists, no record is ever removed from the database. Although we as reviewers provide a coarse flag of evidence for a record, a researcher in the future will almost certainly pull all associated records for their subject. If a researcher were reviewing early Eastern Wood-Pewee arrivals or Mid-Atlantic Northern Goshawks, they're going to deep dive into the data. In that review, they are likely to find confirmed records that raise their eyebrows and that they will still toss out. They could also see records that weren't confirmed that seem more reasonable in their expertise (or in a broader context re-reviewing older records; see below) and include them. Ultimately, all data you submit are permanently archived and will have whatever value they have to researchers studying that species.
With that in mind, I regularly add comments even for uncommon species that are not flagged for the place/date.
The best way to ensure any sighting is used for years to come is to document it. The more unusual the sighting, the more important documentation is. Take the initial example of arriving Eastern Wood-Pewees. This species is so consistent in its arrivals that solid documentation is required on 4/18, but some sightings are expected locally on 4/25. Let's say we receive a report from someone's yard on 4/17 that says "Heard very clearly. Totally positive." Each year, some people will be 100% certain that these calls were not European Starlings; however, years of data show that Eastern Wood-Pewees are simply not arriving here yet. The species may just be touching down in the Gulf states. When we as reviewers accept a report, we are saying that we personally stand by it, and we are likely to be called out by eBird coordinators like Marshall or other state reviewers. And when we confirm something that is rare, we are setting a new precedent. When we validate a
new early arrival date for a species without
documentation, we are carelessly changing what we claim to know about
that species. The next year, that record could be used to defend still
earlier casual reports, creating a feedback cycle that damages the data
set and its trustworthiness. And of course these sorts of things are being reviewed in the context of environmental change. Not only must we get these things right, but our review process must be rigorous enough to defend the data integrity of the data. The more unusual something is, the more important it is that we have it right.
Going back to confirming or not, I maintain that a 4/19 record of Eastern Wood-Pewee without documentation would be tossed out regardless of its current review status. On the other hand, records with notes can withstand the test of time. Let's say you submitted a Mississippi Kite in late April in 1991 and provided a paragraph of comments, but the Mississippi Kite phenomenon was still new and blowing everyone's minds. Your paragraph describing the bird might not have been enough to rule out Plumbeous Kite, so it wasn't confirmed. If I encountered such a report now, I would re-review and validate it. In fact, I use that example because some of Maryland's early Mississippi Kite records weren't accepted due to the high bar that seemed appropriate at the time. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now re-review, which is an item on our long to-do list for MD/DCRC. This applies to eBird as well as BRCs. Records can be reassessed based on new information at any
time. Anne Arundel ravens were crazy rare two years ago, and the Swan Creek birds (on the Bay?!?? no....) blew our minds. Although they're still flagged, I now mark any Swan Creek Common Raven as "Species--Known to be at location". We learn and adjust, but we didn't adjust in the case above until the detailed notes and photos were submitted.
A logical comeback to all of this is "Why not just display everything?" This seems reasonable enough after all, at least for a moment. The problem is - I'm going to say it - people are wrong. Everyone is. A lot. So much. Without the filters, without the review process, we would absolutely find that Black-capped Chickadee is an abundant resident across all of Maryland. A review process - a very thorough one at that - is required for this project to work. Everyone involved in Maryland review has poured entirely too much of their being into Maryland bird distribution minutiae, and we are all nice people who want to do it right. Please, please embrace the review process and try not to worry about what is and isn't ultimately confirmed. It's all on your list and the researchers delving into the data will see exactly what you submitted. I have gone back and invalidated some of my own historical records, and would gladly do it again if there were concerns
raised. The data set is better for it.
I hope that's helpful.
Bill
Winner, 2012 Mark Hoffman "Longest E-mails" Award
�
Bill Hubick
Pasadena, Maryland
<bill_hubick...>
http://www.billhubick.com
http://www.marylandbiodiversity.com
--
|