[obol] Re: RFI Wrentit in Hood River Co.
- From: David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx>
- To: "contopus@xxxxxxxxx" <contopus@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:00:37 -0800
Wayne,
I think your use case (searching through individual checklists) is one not too
many people are doing. Among the litany of issues that I've seen raised about
eBird, I have not heard anyone else raise this one. It is expensive to rewrite
code and if only a few users are affected, the urgency to invest in a fix may
be minimal.
I suspect that most users who are mining the database probably use the map and
bar code outputs. That's what I do when visiting areas I am unfamiliar with
(i.e. planning for an Arizona trip in April).
If not for the alerts, the chances of most users ever encountering the Hood
River Co. Wrentit checklist entry are pretty remote.
Sounds like the eBird team is considering a fix nevertheless.
Dave Irons
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 18, 2015, at 11:05 AM, "Wayne Weber" <contopus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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:
