Even if EVERY bird were correctly identified by EVERY observer, there would 
still be data entry errors. For instance, after a Christmas Count a few 
years ago I discovered one of my party leaders had noted six Red-headed 
Woodpeckers on his tally sheet. Of course he'd really intended to put the 
number next to Red-bellied Woodpecker, and appreciated my catching the typo.

You must have heard the saying "Garbage in, garbage out." If you intend to 
use a database for analytical or predictive purposes, your data must be as 
clean as possible. That means investigating outliers to make sure they 
represent significant observations and not just noise. Scientists --  
"citizen" or professional -- should expect that unusual reports will come 
under special scrutiny.

And remember that the opposite mistake happens too. Many rarities have at 
first been put down as something more ordinary. The Brown Shrike seen in 
Northern California 20 years ago was at first identified as an immature 
Northern Shrike, for example.

Janet Millenson
Potomac, MD (Montgomery County)

----------------------------------------------------------------
"Look at the birds!" -- Pascal the parrot

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Wood" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: [MDOSPREY] GBBC data is also reviewed


| Why are citizens allowed to participate if an "expert" is going to review 
it and question reported sightings?  It's not really "citizen science" then.
|
| Richard
|
| Richard L. Wood, Ph. D.
| Computational Chemist
| Cockeysville, MD 21030
| 
|