[obol] Re: RFI Wrentit in Hood River Co.
- From: "Wayne Weber" <contopus@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "OBOL2" <obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:05:11 -0800
Dave and Oregon Birders,
I'm sure it would be possible to do some fancy programming so that eBird
checklists containing invalidated sightings would appear WITH those
sightings to the reporting observer, but WITHOUT them to everyone else.
However, it may be that the time and effort (and dollars) required to write
such programming and put it into effect may not be considered worthwhile by
the eBird staff.
There is a problem in that many observers who use checklists consider them
to be the gospel truth, and do not realize that they may include invalidated
sightings. There may well be more use made of eBird checklists now than of
the maps, which you can only use to look at one species at a time. I
certainly use checklists a lot to give me an idea of what species to expect
when I visit a new area. (If you use bar-graph checklists, rather than
checklists for an individual date, those don't include invalidated records.)
However, if everyone understands that individual checklists MAY contain
invalidated sightings, and does not regard any individual checklist as
authoritative, the problem is much less. I would still prefer a system which
allows invalidated sightings to be seen only by eBird reviewers and by the
person(s) who submitted them, rather than being visible to everyone.
This has nothing to do with the eBird ALERTS, which are e-mail messages
about rare or wanted species. These most certainly should include unverified
and questionable sightings as well as confirmed ones, and I'm sure everyone
who uses these realizes that many of these reports are unverified.
Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus@xxxxxxxxx
From: obol-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:obol-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of David Irons
Sent: February-18-15 10:02 AM
To: OBOL Oregon Birders Online
Cc: Brian Sullivan; Marshall Iliff
Subject: [obol] Re: RFI Wrentit in Hood River Co.
Alan et al.,
This is not a "major issue." We are talking about two discrete informational
streams here. One is the database and the other is the real-time "alert"
system. In my opinion, this is not a problem that needs to be "fixed."
There is but one useful path into the eBird database and that is via
"Explore Data." The only records that appear on the maps, bar charts and
other outputs of the database are those that either didn't trigger a filter
(common birds in expected numbers) or those that have been reviewed and
validated by local reviewers-these records involve less-expected birds or
unusually high counts that trigger preset filters.
The real-time "alerts" are designed to notify other birders about
potentially correct rare bird discoveries in a timely fashion so that they
can be followed up on before the trail goes cold. A Wrentit in Hood River
County definitely qualifies as such, as there are no confirmed records for
the county. These alerts should be treated with 'buyer beware' mentality, as
typically they have not been confirmed by other birders or processed by the
local eBird reviewer.
I can't imagine that someone seeking to dig into the eBird database for the
purposes Alan describes would ever use the eBird alerts as their source. The
alerts are streamed chronologically and are not particularly searchable
otherwise. If you want to search information on a particular species or a
particular region, the only logical path would be to go to the website and
search via Explore Data. If you do this currently, you will find no data
points suggesting that Wrentit has ever been recorded in Hood River County.
Until such time that there is a reviewed and validated report for Hood River
County, you won't.
Individual checklists are essentially the property of those who enter them.
Part of the appeal of eBird is that users can include and count whatever
they want on their own lists and they cannot be compelled by local reviewers
to remove species or change their counts. Reviewers work to protect the
integrity of the database, not police individual checklists. Applying a
'scarlet letter' of sorts to invalidated sightings would certainly be viewed
by some as an intrusion into their work space. Part of the review process is
to help users understand the difference between validation and invalidation.
In my work as a reviewer I've found that most folks appreciate the work we
do and readily accept that the database needs to be held to a higher
standard than what might be included on our personal lists.
Dave Irons
Portland, OR
_____
Subject: [obol] RFI Wrentit in Hood River Co.
From: acontrer56@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:09:26 -0800
CC: obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: contopus@xxxxxxxxx
That's a fairly major issue. It means you can't use the database as a
source for, say, a regional ornithology without cross-checking the map for
every species that has an unusual record. Ugh. Needs to be fixed.
Of course, anyone who uses the database can simply ignore any individual
list or report, but that limits the utility of the system.
.
.
Alan Contreras
acontrer56@xxxxxxxxx
Eugene, Oregon
On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Wayne Weber wrote:
Jeff and Oregon Birders,
This report of a Wrentit at Lost Lake has apparently been invalidated by the
local eBird reviewer/editor, because it does not appear in eBird maps of the
distribution of this species.
One of the problems with using eBird data, which may not be understood by
everyone who uses eBird, is that invalidated records (i.e., those considered
to be erroneous or questionable by reviewers) are NOT marked as such on
checklists, and appear to be perfectly valid records. Invalidated records do
not appear on maps, and are not part of the main eBird database, but unless
they are withdrawn or deleted by the observer, these records will still
appear on checklists. If you are looking at a checklist, and one or more
sightings appear to be questionable, you should double-check to make sure it
shows up on a map before accepting the sighting as valid.
The failure to label invalidated records on checklists, in my opinion, is
one of the biggest problems in using eBird data currently. I'm sure that the
eBird staff recognize this as a serious problem, and that they plan to fix
it, but I suspect that it will take a significant amount of computer
programming to rectify this problem.
Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus@xxxxxxxxx
eBird reviewer/editor for Metro Vancouver, BC
From: obol-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:obol-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of J Hayes
Sent: February-17-15 9:19 PM
To: Oregon Birders OnLine
Subject: [obol] RFI Wrentit in Hood River Co.
Hello, birders
I've come across a report of a Wrentit at Lost Lake in Hood River County
July 12 2014. Here's the eBird checklist link:
www.ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S19089151
Does anyone know of any prior records of this species in Hood River County?
I could not find any. Your help is appreciated.
Jeff Hayes
Other related posts:
