Does anybody besides me miss field cards??????
Van Harris
Millington, TN
From: "Tom Howe" <blountbirder@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "stefan woltmann" <stefan.woltmann@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Scott Somershoe" <ssomershoe@xxxxxxxxx>, "tn-birds"
<tn-bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:33:27 AM
Subject: [TN-Bird] Re: What is going on with EBIRD?!
Nell
We have had filter issues lately too. Susan Hoyle said it sounded like issues
with the mobile app. You’re not alone.
Tom Howe
Alcoa
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:12 AM Stefan Woltmann < [
mailto:stefan.woltmann@xxxxxxxxx ;| stefan.woltmann@xxxxxxxxx ] > wrote:
Scott and all,
I very much appreciate the work you've done on the eBird filters regarding
subspecies, both as someone who enters data and one who occasionally tries to
make use of those data.
I understand this is a bit off the original topic, but I think it's worth
reiterating that a good majority of subspecies possible in eBird are not worth
reporting as such for the reasons Scott mentioned. Reasons why fall into at
least 3 categories: (1) whether some species are identifiable using modern
scientific tools has not been evaluated, so whatever is being entered is
dubious ("are these 'good' subspecies?"), (2) whatever is being entered is just
an assumption based on probability (in which case, what's the point of IDing to
subspecies - let later researchers make the call if they want), (3) sometimes
there's simply no basis for making a call: Ganier long ago made interesting
observations on how Tennessee falls within a contact zone between various
subspecies (of which Downy Woodpecker was listed as an example - but Ganier had
the advantage of studying specimens).
Lastly, of course there are a few subspecies that are *relatively* easy to call
(but not Always! e.g., "Myrtle" vs "Audubon's" Warbler", Yellow-shafted vs
Red-shafted Flicker), but as Scott points out with coots, it's not valid to
simply assume (and therefore call) everything you encountered if you didn't
look at every last one to verify. It's just not that important to enter
overly-precise data if it's not 100% verifiable correct data.
So thanks to Scott and all the eBird reviewers - it's often a thankless job!
Best birding,
Stefan
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 7:23 AM Scott Somershoe < [ mailto:ssomershoe@xxxxxxxxx ;
| ssomershoe@xxxxxxxxx ] > wrote:
BQ_BEGIN
More in my response than needed to address your question, but it's all relevant
to eBirders.
Sounds like you are having some sort of issues with your computer rather than
with eBird. Nothing has changed with eBird, if anything it's easier than ever
to submit data both from ebird improvements and the reviewers making things
better. Filters are constantly being adjusted, often making the limits higher
for less flags. However filters are set at the county level, and in a lot of
cases, several counties constitute a filter. Thus there are odd parts of
filters with a unique/limited habitat or elevation and something is on the
"rare" list because it is very local in occurrence in the filter region but
everyone knows said species breeds at that location. These types of reports are
easy to submit comments for and for us to validate.
Great Blue Heron will never come up as rare in TN. If you tried to submit (blue
form) great blue, that'll be rare since its the default subspecies and I
removed it from the filters statewide back in the fall. It's completely
redundant with "great blue heron". If you had a blue heron form other than
blue, then you should find the appropriate subspecies!
To that end, I removed most of the default subspecies from the 36 filters
statewide because they are redundant and using them assumes observers know how
to identify every subspecies and that every individual was looked at to confirm
the subspecies. Example, no one looked at 2000 coots to confirm all were
red-shielded, thus saying all were red-shielded in a list is wrong. Heard only
downy woodpeckers in TN should never be submitted as "eastern downy" because
you didn't see the bird to confirm it's not a "rocky mtns downy" that basically
has a 0% chance of occurring in the state. No reason to submit them as
easterns. Having default subspecies listed in addition to the regular species
name is confusing to the user as well. There were a lot of subspecies in
filters that probably 99.9% of us didn't know existed, myself included. Many of
these are the only subspecies in N America, so there's really no reason to have
them all listed. There's more to this but that's the skinny.
Like I said, more here than to simply answer your question (if it answered it
all), but all connected and may be of interest to folks.
Scott Somershoe
Statewide eBird lead for TN
Littleton CO
Sent from my iPhone
On May 30, 2018, at 5:46 AM, NELL MOORE < [ mailto:moorephotography@xxxxxxxxxxx ;
| moorephotography@xxxxxxxxxxx ] > wrote:
BQ_BEGIN
Anyone know what's up with ebird? Anyone having issues lately entering data?
Those of you that know me know I am a huge believer in records, however,this is
getting too much like WORK! Getting below response (pasted here) while trying
to update/ enter recent records. Have had a lot of issues with "filters" lately
also. Getting discouraged as really don't have time to enter all anymore with
all the glitches. A few days ago, had to enter details on a "Great Blue Heron"
as RARE at Cove Lake? What? Use only home computer for my entries. No interest
in using phone to enter while in the field. Thanks.
HTTP Status 404 – Not Found
Type Status Report
Message /ebird/home
Description The origin server did not find a current representation for the
target resource or is not willing to disclose that one exists.
Apache Tomcat/8.5.23
BQ_END
--
Stefan Woltmann, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Dept. of Biology, and
Center of Excellence for Field Biology
Austin Peay State University
Clarksville, TN 37044
931-221-7772
[ mailto:woltmanns@xxxxxxxx ;| woltmanns@xxxxxxxx ]
BQ_END
