Rejection - bad word choice in my opinion; it has negative connotation. Neither birders nor their sightings are being rejected. Records are being evaluated by competent local reviewers as to whether sufficient evidence exists for them to be included in a scientific database. That's all - it's not a judgment on your competence as a birder or whether you called it right - just that there is or isn't enough evidence (documentation). Birds fly and skulk and hide and magically disappear - they don't all sit around nicely posing for photographs, singing prettily for recorders, or staying still for 10 minutes while you take copious field notes. And sometimes we're just lazy with our comments or don't know how to describe a song or whatever. If your sighting doesn't make the cut, it doesn't mean you weren't correct in your ID.
The reviewers are keeping the data as clean as possible for subsequent researchers - benefit of the doubt doesn't really work in science. But, as Bill said, all the raw data is still there if the researchers need/want it. The reviewers, as well as donating their time and energy to and for us, also have families, jobs, and lives outside eBird; I have that on the best authority! Reviewing is already an onerous task. Adding to it personal replies for every under-documented (for whatever reason) sighting seems unrealistic. There are many of us at all skill levels, and only a few reviewers.
If you notice that a lot of your flagged sightings aren't making the cut, maybe you could ask the reviewers for hints to make your documentation better. You might also look at others' checklists and see how they support their sightings.
Or, you could just do the best you can, submit your sightings, and let them go. Oh, and for the record, yes, there are some of us who don't check up on our sightings. :-)
My two cents.
Nancy Magnusson
Ellicott City
Sent from my iPad
--
|