[orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on)
- From: Jay Withgott <withgott@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:39:14 -0800
I too vote for #2.
On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:31 PM, David Irons wrote:
> Doug,
>
> I too think that Matt's option #2 is best. As soon as we include
> non-identifiable or somewhat unquantified sub-population/subspecies in the
> default checklist, user will them use and likely misuse them. Many of the
> dicey sub-population designations are those that reference generalized
> regional forms like I described in my long initial post on this topic. These
> taxa (for lack of better word) do not necessarily represent a specific
> subspecies or readily identifiable population. Folks use these thinking that
> they are helping, when in reality they are making waters that are already
> murky more muddy.
>
> Dave
>
> From: w.douglas.robinson@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on)
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:05:02 -0800
> To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I feel like Matt's option 2 is generally the best. It strikes a balance
> between adding the obvious and regionally identifiable subspecies to the
> lists while making it easy to find them (and therefore gather data on them)
> and not cluttering lists with too many subspecies.
>
> I'm still open to hosting a group meeting of reviewers who want to attend and
> talk about these and other issues. The initial offer was met by a few
> positive replies and a bunch of negative ones. We don't all have to attend. I
> know we have a big state and it is hard for all of us to travel to a meeting.
> If interested, one option would be to meet a day before or after one of our
> upcoming 2020 county blitzes. The schedule is on the oregon2020.com website.
> The counties are Sherman/Gilliam, Wheeler, Clatsop/Columbia, Wallowa and
> northern Malheur. Maybe some of you find it easier to shake free during late
> May and June, and could multi-task by joining a blitz?
>
> Cheers
> Doug
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Matthew G Hunter wrote:
>
> I assume a short note for the NW portal would be directed at "users" and
> encouraging a conservative approach to using these designations? I think
> that is a good idea.
>
> We, I think, still have not had enough discussion among ourselves (just a
> couple big long emails from Dave and me), about what we should do with regard
> to our default checklists. Options I see: (1) leave them all off so people
> have to add them if they want them, (2) include only the subpopulations that
> we feel are readily identifiable in the field, and any others people have to
> add themselves, or (3) put all the expected subpopulations for each county in
> the default checklist, so people don't have to add them. In all cases people
> would have to add out of range subpopulations (e.g. a European Herring Gull
> or whatever).
>
> Matt
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:16 AM, David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Doug at al.,
>
> You are probably right. A short note on this topic and the use of
> sub-population assignments would be a good topic for the portal. I will try
> to get something started on this.
>
> Also, I heard back from Craig Miller this morning and to my modest surprise
> he has offered to take on the eBird review for Lake, Harney and Malheur
> counties. I will make contact with Noah (to the extent that it's possible
> right now) and let him know that Craig is willing to take on these duties.
> Noah has another book to write upon his return from the World Big Year
> effort, so I don't foresee eBird review fitting into his life again any time
> soon. We may want to recruit some help with Harney for Craig, as this county
> becomes a load once the masses descend in May. Lake and Malheur are both very
> manageable year around.
>
> Once I get Craig's user name, I will forward it to Brian Sullivan so that we
> can get him set up as a reviewer. I know that he'll do a fantastic job with
> these counties. As soon as all this is in place, I will let Greg Haworth and
> Ian Davies know so that we can update the review team spreadsheet and get
> everyone properly assigned.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> From: w.douglas.robinson@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on)
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 08:34:54 -0800
> To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I think a short article about the need for Mallard (Northern) and why it is
> showing up on Oregon eBird checklists would be good for eBird Northwest
> article. Pretty sure most birders will see it and think "What's this all
> about?" Want to write something up?
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, David Irons wrote:
>
> Greetings All,
>
> Given that Noah Strycker is out of the country for nearly the entirety of
> this coming year (doing a World Big Year) it is probably safe to assume that
> eBird reviewing will not be part of his activities in 2015. He is currently
> the assigned reviewer for Harney, Lake, and Malheur counties. Over recent
> weeks I have taken it upon myself to plow through the modest backlog of
> un-reviewed records for these counties. The Malheur County queue is, as of a
> few minutes ago, empty. I've been able to whittle the Harney and Lake queues
> down to fewer than 10 outstanding records each, with queries out to those
> observers with records that remain in question. I also sent a note to Craig
> Miller, asking if he might take on Lake County. He knows the status and
> distribution of Lake County's birds as well as anyone and would surely make a
> wonderful addition to our team if he accepts (fingers crossed).
>
> Today, Shawneen and I went out to the Nature Center at Jackson Bottom Wetland
> Preserve to meet with staffers and volunteers there who have been entering
> more than two decades of monthly on-site bird survey data into eBird. As one
> might expect, their survey protocols, particularly the earlier ones don't
> dovetail perfectly with the current requirements of eBird. There are of
> course taxonomy issues, with older checklists listing all white-cheeked geese
> as "Canada Goose" and Pacific Wrens as "Winter Wrens." There are also lots of
> checklists that show "Common Snipe," which is now of course the Eurasian
> cousin of North America's Wilson's Snipe. They have a wonderful volunteer who
> is a whiz at getting the data formatted and transferred en masse and just
> today he solved most of the biggest issue. In there historical data there is
> a consistent use of regional sub-population designations that have not been
> entered into the default Washington County checklist or had filters set.
> Examples of this are things like "Song Sparrow (Pacific Northwest)" and
> "Spotted Towhee (Pacific)."
>
> Since I've raised this issue, you should be aware that there has been some
> behind the scenes discussion about the value and usefulness of some of the
> regional taxonomic designations. Personally, I don't like many of them
> because I think the definitions themselves defy quantification. Can any of
> you define the bounds of "Spotted Towhee (Pacific)." I can't, so I suspect
> that the average birder can't either. It's likely that most observers who
> select this more refined regional designation when entering Spotted Towhee
> are doing so because they are standing in proximity to the Pacific
> Ocean/Coast and not because they are identifying the bird (based on
> appearance) to a particular source breeding population.
>
> During the winter months in particular, western Oregon gets Spotted Towhees
> that are not very spotted on the upperparts and uniformly dark burnt orange
> on both the flanks and the undertail (the local breeding P. m. oregonus). We
> also get quite a few birds that are heavily spotted and paler burnt orange on
> the flanks, with even paler somewhat yellowish-orange under the tail. The
> latter birds resemble a number of interior and more northerly breeding
> subspecies, which in my opinion probably can't be assigned to subspecies with
> any clarity. We have a long way to go in order to gain a grasp on where these
> birds originate, so for now it may be best to leave them as simply Spotted
> Towhee and discourage the use of "Spotted Towhee (Pacific)" until such time
> that we or someone else comes along who can teach the rest of us how to sort
> them out.
>
> My personal yardstick for determining whether I make
> subspecies/sub-population assignments is, "can I, in relatively short order,
> show other birders the difference between two subspecies or sub-population
> types and have them understand it and be able to use it themselves." If I
> can't, then I probably shouldn't be using such designations myself. For
> example, I've had good success teaching folks the difference between Gambel's
> and Puget Sound White-crowned Sparrows, so I endeavor to sort this species to
> subspecies whenever I get a good look. Myrtle and Audubon's Yellow-rumped
> Warblers are another good example of readily identifiable sub-populations. To
> a lesser degree, most Dark-eyed Juncos can be sorted to types that most
> frequently occur in Oregon. On the reverse side of this coin, I don't have
> any notion of what a "Song Sparrow (Pacific Northwest)" is, although I assume
> most would limit the use of this designation to the really dark coastal types
> that we see most often on the west side of the Cascades. That said, one
> doesn't have to travel very far east to start seeing Song Sparrows that are
> considerably paler in appearance. When I think of the Pacific Northwest, I
> don't lop off the eastern two-thirds of Oregon and Washington.
>
> As those of us who subscribe to OBOL have seen, many of the birds listed in
> the daily eBird rarity alerts for Oregon are there solely because we have not
> added these regional sub-population taxa or set filters for them in our
> respective default county checklists. Ultimately, the eBird project managers
> are interested in the most refined reporting possible, with the ultimate goal
> of being able to map the ranges of identifiable subspecies and sub-population
> groups. In my view, the key word is "identifiable." If we allow the use of
> designations for which there are not well-established ID criteria we are
> creating a lot of less than ideal and perhaps even incorrect data that we may
> have to revisit and unravel someday. There is no easy answer. I am all for
> trying to collect subspecies information when available.
>
> I would encourage you all to keep this issue in mind as you review flagged
> reports and set filters. Take the extra time to ask observers how or why they
> decided to label a bird under one of these murky regional taxa and add them
> to the county checklist only when you feel like you are capable of helping
> your user base through the process of identifying them.
>
> Finally, some of you may have seen "Mallard (Northern)" pop up in a checklist
> or in the Oregon alerts for a particular county. This is the default Mallard
> for all parts of North America away from the southerly areas where Mexican
> Mallard can be found. Since this is a readily recognizable form and the
> presumed type that we get in Oregon, it should be added to all county default
> checklists and the filters should be set at the same level as "Mallard." On
> the surface this may seem like having two entry slots for the very same bird,
> but think of the big picture goal of being able to define the range of this
> sub-population of Mallard. Ideally, we want train local users to start
> entering their birds as "Mallard (Northern)" rather unspecified "Mallard." It
> may save us a lot of work in the future.
>
> I know this post is long and lot of ideas are addressed. Let's try to stay on
> top of our respective reviewing responsibilities. Folks who are dedicated
> about entering checklists and accurately accounting for what they see and
> hear deserve to see their data points represented in the output data in a
> timely fashion. Reviewing eBird observations tends to be one of those things
> that I forget to do for several weeks at a time, so I have set my phone up to
> give me a weekly notification reminding me to do it. Every Sunday at 10AM my
> phone beeps at me. It has helped me keep up and stay on top of the review
> process.
>
> Thanks to all of you for the time that you invest in making Oregon's eBird
> data as good as it can be.
>
> Dave Irons
>
> From: g.haworth@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:10:17 -0800
> Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update and Ian Davies introduction
> To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; id99@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Brian, Ian, fellow OR review team:
>
> Among ourselves, we came to decisions of "best case" assignments. These were
> based on evolved personal circumstances, balancing the work load of the
> available reviewers, and familiarity with the counties to be reviewed. We
> still have one outstanding issue and that is what to do with Noah Stryker's
> three SE counties during his travels this year.
>
> We have a communal spreadsheet that reflects the decisions we came to. It
> can be found here. Currently reviewer access to the filters reflected in
> this spreadsheet do not match with current access. Current access matches
> past assignments. Changes would need to made to filter access in order for
> us to achieve our current thinking on how best to cover Oregon.
>
> greg haworth
> Columbia (access) Clackamas (no access) Counties
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Brian Sullivan <bls42@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Everyone
>
> I've been meaning to respond to the recent spate of emails and make sure that
> everyone has the correct review assignments in OR and that we can
> successfully accomplish any juggling that needs to be done. Luckily, we've
> just brought on Ian Davies to help with these kinds of house-keeping issues,
> so please add Ian to the orebird list so he can be up to speed on what's
> happening. In addition to helping with reviewers/filters, Ian is the point
> person for content on the eBird site and social media. Please feel free to
> email him directly if you have questions.
>
> I think, once Ian is added, that it would be worth everyone sending an email
> to this list that details the OR counties that they are currently covering.
> That way Ian can double-check the review assignments and make sure they are
> up to date.
>
> Thanks
>
> Brian
>
> --
> ===========
> Brian L. Sullivan
>
> eBird Project Leader
> www.ebird.org
>
> Photo Editor
> Birds of North America Online
> http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA
> -------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> Avian Migration w/ PNW focus
> Forays into the field
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
