Message Board Search Tool
Banding Code Translator | Recent Rare Bird Sightings
©2018 Christopher Taylor (Kiwifoto.com)
Help Support!
calbirds        search ebird rarities [plot]
filter rba/cbc

  26 result(s) found...Displaying messages 1 through 15, sorted by date descending.
  next page

 Month/Year Breakdown (Top 15):

 Jan, 2018 - 22 e-mail(s)...
 Jun, 2008 - 1 e-mail(s)...
 Nov, 2014 - 1 e-mail(s)...
 Feb, 2018 - 1 e-mail(s)...
 Apr, 2018 - 1 e-mail(s)...



   Tropical Parula
Tropical Parula
Parula pitiayumi


   Tropical Parula (Parula pitiayumi) - TRPA (recent eBird sightings, view CBRC records, range map
)

  1. CBRC review and request for documentation LINK
    DATE: Apr 3, 2018 @ 1:57pm, 48 day(s) ago
    California birders,   The California Bird Records Committee (CBRC) will begin reviewing the following records in early May. If you have any documentation to submit for these records, please do so as soon as possible. Feel free to forward this request to local
    listservs as appropriate. Thank you.   Tom   Thomas A. Benson Secretary, California Bird Records Committee     2017-139  Garganey                       25 Nov 2017-11 Mar 2018             Waller Park  SBA                               (documentation from 5 observers – additional documentation requested) 2017-142  Black-headed Gull       27 Nov 2017                                        Pt. Pinos  MTY                                    (documentation complete) 2017-143  Black-headed Gull       5-9 Dec 2017                                      North Shore  RIV                              (eBird reports – no documentation received) 2017-154  Black-headed Gull       9 Dec 2017                                          Modesto WTP  STA                          (eBird report – no documentation received) 2018-022  Black-tailed Gull           11 Feb-11 Mar 2018                        Crescent City  DN                             (documentation from 5 observers – additional documentation requested) 2017-175  Arctic Loon                    16 Dec 2017                                        Pt. Pinos  MTY                                    (documentation complete) 2018-015  Arctic Loon                    26 Jan-18 Feb 2018                          Abbotts Lagoon  MRN                    (documentation from 3 observers – additional documentation requested) 2018-021  Arctic Loon                    2 Feb 2018                                           Steamer Lane  SCZ                           (documentation complete) 2017-155  Nazca Booby (4)          11 Dec 2017-present                      San Diego Bay  SD                            (documentation from 15 observers – additional documentation requested) 2018-010  Nazca Booby                 16 Jan 2018                                         near Ocean Beach  SD                    (documentation complete) 2017-094  Tricolored Heron (2)  25 Sep 2017-present                       Bolsa Chica  ORA                              (documentation from 7 observers – additional documentation requested) 2017-096  Tricolored Heron         25-26 Sep 2017                                  Santa Ana R.  ORA                            (documentation from 2 observers – additional documentation requested) 2017-113  Black Vulture                14-22 Oct 2017                                  Pt. Reyes  MRN                                 (eBird reports – no documentation received) 2018-016  Gyrfalcon                       3 Feb-4 Mar 2018                             Pajaro R. mouth  MTY/SCZ           (documentation from 7 observers – additional documentation requested) 2018-011  Winter Wren                 2 Jan-20 Feb 2018                             Pt. San Pablo  CC                              (documentation from 1 observer – additional documentation requested) 2018-014  Winter Wren                 28 Jan 2018                                         Orr Ranch  SAC                                  (eBird report – no documentation received) 2018-009  Curve-billed Thrasher   6 Jan-18 Feb 2018                          Woodland  YOL                                 (documentation from 9 observers – additional documentation requested) 2018-013  Field Sparrow               26 Jan 2018                                         Half Moon Bay  SM                          (eBird report – no documentation received) 2017-168  Louisiana Waterthrush  23 Dec 2017-14 Jan 2018          Big Sur R.  MTY                                  (documentation from 2 observers – additional documentation requested) 2018-001  Tropical Parula             5 Jan-14 Feb 2018                             Huntington Beach  ORA                 (documentation from 11 observers – additional documentation requested)     What kind of documentation should one submit to the CBRC Following are some guidelines for submitting media and written descriptions that will be useful for helping the CBRC evaluate records and archive documentation. Documentation may
    be submitted directly to the secretary via email ( secretary@... ) , or by using the online submission form ( http://www.californiabirds.org/report_sighting.html ).   Media: This includes photos, audio recordings, and video. Photographs are usually the most useful documentation for evaluating records. If you have reasonably good (=identifiable) photos, please submit them. If possible, please crop the
    photos before submission so that the bird fills most of the frame. Also, please send originals whenever possible, and not screenshots or back-of-camera photos. How many photos should you submit That really depends on the record. If it is a long-staying rarity
    that is easily identifiable and seen by dozens of people, then a few photos (1-3 per person) are sufficient. If it is a mega-rarity that is difficult to identify and only seen by a one or few people, then send as many photos as possible that show the bird
    at different angles, postures, lighting, etc. Sometimes it is also useful to submit audio and/or video recordings of the bird, as some birds are more easily identified by their vocalizations. If relatively short, most audio recordings are small enough to be
    submitted via email; please submit those along with a brief note indicating the date and location of the recording. Large audio files and video files can be submitted by using a file sharing service; please contact the secretary if you need to submit a file
    that is too large for email.   Written descriptions: Some written details should always be provided – even the best photos should be accompanied by the name of the observer, the date, and the location, at a minimum. Sometimes a photo can’t be obtained or vocalizations
    can’t be recorded. In some cases, behaviors might be noted in the field that aren’t preserved well by photos. In these cases, it is helpful to submit a written description of the bird. Ideally, this description should be written as soon after observing the
    bird as possible; it is often helpful to make written notes in the field, or even dictate notes into the voice recorder on your smartphone while observing the bird, from which you can later generate a written description. The most important aspect of a written
    description is that you report only what you observed, and not a general description of the bird from a field guide. At a minimum, your description should include the date and location of the observation, and a description of the bird (size and structure,
    plumage, vocalizations, behavior). A brief discussion of how the bird was identified, and how similar species were eliminated is also helpful. Other useful information you might report includes optics used, distance from bird, lighting or weather conditions,
    length of time viewed, and other observers present.    
  2. -back to top-
  3. tropical thanks LINK
    DATE: Feb 19, 2018, 3 month(s) ago
    For a variety of reasons, organized visits to see the
    Tropical Parula in Huntington Beach have come to an end. To date, nearly 250
    birders have been able to see the bird, despite delicate onsite private
    property concerns. How those obstacles were able to be overcome are due to a
    select group of individuals, starting with property manager Love Douglas. If
    not for her generosity and fondness for birds (and perhaps even birders by
    now), this enterprise wouldn’t have had a chance of success. Equally deserving
    of gratitude is Ryan Winkleman (RYWI), who devoted an excessive amount of time to
    the logistics of these visitations. Without him at the hub of the wheel, this wouldn’t
    have happened. Lastly, there are those that served as leaders, with several
    leading multiple groups to see the bird: Brian Daniels, Tom Wurster, Curtis Marantz,
    Roger Schoedl, Jeff Bray, Lucy Lee, Liga Auzins-Wurster, Vic Leipzig, Tom
    Benson, and Doug Willick.   A recent,
    ill-fated presidential candidate once asserted, “It takes a village,” and the
    success of this collective endeavor is surely proof of that. We owe them all a
    lot of thanks.               Jim Pike Huntington Beach
  4. -back to top-
  5. Re: Tropical Parula, anyone? LINK
    DATE: Jan 29, 2018 @ 12:38pm, 4 month(s) ago
    I've got enough people now to cover the Orange County Tropical Parula groups for this week. You can still email me at  OCTRPA@...  (OCTRPA at Gmail dot com) to be on the general waitlist but please only list your general future availability *after* this week.
    
    Again, there are no guarantees that trips will continue after this week. If they do, the people on the waitlist will be put on them to the extent possible until such time that the bird is no longer being seen or the trips are otherwise ended for other reasons.
    
    Ryan Winkleman
    Rancho Santa Margarita (the jewel of Orange County)
    
    On Jan 29, 2018 9:37 AM, "Ryan Winkleman" < rswinkleman@... > wrote:
    Howdy California,
    
    The Tropical Parula waitlist has mostly run out and I can accept some more names. At the property manager's request we are scaling things back a bit and are now currently expecting a trip this Thursday, February 1, and another on Saturday, February 3.
    
    If you would like to put your name down, please email your availability for these dates to  OCTRPA@...  (OCTRPA at Gmail dot com). There is currently much more availability on Thursday, and Saturday is basically full already from the remnant waitlisters. Your best chance to get out this week is on Thursday. Please do not email my personal email address.
    
    These trips are still one week at a time. I am doing my best to secure trips each week but it's up to the property management to keep allowing them and up to the bird to keep showing up. Again, please don't go by yourself if you know where the bird is.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Ryan Winkleman
    Beautiful Rancho Santa Margarita in Wonderful Orange County
  6. -back to top-
  7. Tropical Parula, anyone? LINK
    DATE: Jan 29, 2018 @ 9:37am, 4 month(s) ago
    Howdy California,
    
    The Tropical Parula waitlist has mostly run out and I can accept some more names. At the property manager's request we are scaling things back a bit and are now currently expecting a trip this Thursday, February 1, and another on Saturday, February 3.
    
    If you would like to put your name down, please email your availability for these dates to  OCTRPA@...  (OCTRPA at Gmail dot com). There is currently much more availability on Thursday, and Saturday is basically full already from the remnant waitlisters. Your best chance to get out this week is on Thursday. Please do not email my personal email address.
    
    These trips are still one week at a time. I am doing my best to secure trips each week but it's up to the property management to keep allowing them and up to the bird to keep showing up. Again, please don't go by yourself if you know where the bird is.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Ryan Winkleman
    Beautiful Rancho Santa Margarita in Wonderful Orange County
  8. -back to top-
  9. RE: [CALBIRDS] News from the California Bird Records Committee LINK
    DATE: Jan 24, 2018 @ 2:56pm, 4 month(s) ago
    Tom,
    
    Thanks. I am interested in this question. One thing to consider is the interplay between age and the white on the central rectrices. I posted a bunch of photos on the Facebook Advanced ID site some time ago about this. But in some **juvenile** Nazca Boobies in the Galapagos, the white is showing in the central tail feathers before fledging. I am not sure if you need to be a member to see this:
    
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.phpfbid=10155071688133520 < https://www.facebook.com/photo.phpfbid=10155071688133520&set=pcb.1417872404975626&type=3&theater&ifg=1 > &set=pcb.1417872404975626&type=3&theater&ifg=1
    
    regards,
    
    Alvaro
    
    Alvaro Jaramillo
    
    alvaro@...
    
    www.alvarosadventures.com
    
    From: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com [mailto: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Tom Benson Thomasabenson@... [CALBIRDS]
    
    Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:49 PM
    
    To: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com
    
    Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] News from the California Bird Records Committee
    
    Alvaro,
    
    The committee reviewed a number of photos of Masked Boobies, a couple of which showed extensive white on the tail. I do not recall where those photos were from, but perhaps other committee members can chime in with the source of those photos.
    
    Tom
    
    Tom Benson
    
    Secretary, CBRC
    
    
  10. -back to top-
  11. RE: [CALBIRDS] News from the California Bird Records Committee LINK
    DATE: Jan 24, 2018 @ 2:15pm, 4 month(s) ago
    Kimball,
    
    Are there well documented (photos/specimens) Masked Boobies with
    
    extensive white on the tail
    
    Thanks,
    
    Alvaro
    
    Alvaro Jaramillo
    
    alvaro@...
    
    www.alvarosadventures.com
    
    From: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com [mailto: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf
    
    Of Kimball Garrett kgarrett@... [CALBIRDS]
    
    Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:03 PM
    
    To: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com
    
    Subject: [CALBIRDS] News from the California Bird Records Committee
    
    Birders,
    
    The California Bird Records Committee held its annual meeting in Los Gatos
    
    19-20 January. Steve Rottenborn, CBRC Chair, has provided the following
    
    highlights of that meeting along with some recent CBRC decisions.
    
    COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
    
    Dan Singer, Peter Pyle, and Jim Pike were elected as voting members. Steve
    
    Rottenborn, Dan Singer, and Tom Benson were elected as Chair, Vice Chair,
    
    and Secretary, respectively. The terms of Lauren Harter, Kristie Nelson, and
    
    Scott Terrill expired.
    
    STATE LIST
    
    Recently accepted additions to the California list are all from offshore
    
    islands - Jouanin's Petrel (1 Jun 2016, Santa Barbara Island, SBA), Kermadec
    
    Petrel (8 Sep 2017, Southeast Farallon Island, SF), and Eurasian Wryneck (25
    
    Sep 2017, San Clemente Island, LA). With these additions, the state list
    
    stands at 668 species. Other potential first state records awaiting CBRC
    
    review include Band-rumped Storm Petrel (10-11 Nov 2017, Southeast Farallon
    
    Island, SF), Citrine Wagtail (15-16 Dec 2017, Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area,
    
    YOL), and Tropical Parula (5 Jan 2018-present, Huntington Beach, ORA).
    
    REVIEW LIST
    
    Dusky-capped Flycatcher was removed from the Review List on the basis of the
    
    number of accepted records (110 at the time of the meeting, with an average
    
    of 4.3/year over the last 10 years) and relatively high acceptance rate
    
    (89%). All five current wintering Dusky-capped Flycatchers that were first
    
    recorded in 2017 will still be reviewed; please send your documentation for
    
    these individuals, or any other review species, to the CBRC secretary at
    
    secretary@... or by
    
    using the online form at
    
    http://www.californiabirds.org/report_sighting.html.
    
    OTHER DISCUSSIONS/DECISIONS
    
    Identification of adult Masked and Nazca boobies is straightforward given
    
    adequate views, but identification of subadults is more challenging. Along
    
    with the recent increase in numbers of adult Masked and, especially, Nazca
    
    boobies in California, the Committee has wrestled with the identity of a
    
    number of subadult birds. To supplement information in the identification
    
    literature, the CBRC reached out to experts Robert Pitman and Mike Force for
    
    information on how quickly subadults start to acquire the "adult" bill
    
    color, how reliable the presence/extent of white on the central rectrices is
    
    for identification, and how frequently hybridization between the two species
    
    occurs. More information on all these issues is needed, but it appears that
    
    some immatures begin to acquire the greenish (Masked) or pinkish (Nazca)
    
    bill color after about a year, and the presence of those colors is the most
    
    reliable field character. Until those colors are apparent in the bill,
    
    reliable identification may not be possible. Presence of extensive white in
    
    the central rectrices is suggestive of Nazca, but some Nazcas lack extensive
    
    white, and a small percentage of Masked Boobies can show extensive white.
    
    Hybridization between the two species does occur, but hybrids are apparently
    
    infrequent enough that the probability of encountering one is very low.
    
    Using these ID criteria, the CBRC is accepting a number of records to
    
    species, but juveniles, as well as subadults that are not well seen or that
    
    lack expression of some "adult" bill color, may be accepted only as
    
    "Masked/Nazca Booby".
    
    The Committee discussed photos of a California Blue-headed/Cassin's Vireo
    
    that looked quite good for Blue-headed in lower-light exposures (with
    
    apparently sharp demarcation between dark auriculars and white throat) and
    
    much better for Cassin's in more strongly lit or better exposed images,
    
    which blurred the demarcation between the auriculars and throat. The images
    
    of this individual emphasized the importance of obtaining as much
    
    documentation of putative Blue-headed Vireo records as possible (in this
    
    case, recordings of the song matched Cassin's well) while reiterating how
    
    difficult the identification of some Blue-headed/Cassin's Vireos can be.
    
    The Committee decided to re-evaluate the 4 Dec 1986-3 Apr 1987 record of
    
    Oriental Greenfinch from Arcata, HUM. This record was previously not
    
    accepted by the CBRC on the grounds of questionable natural occurrence, as
    
    there were no North American records away from the western Aleutians at the
    
    time and the Committee was concerned about the potential for the bird to
    
    have escaped (or been released) from captivity. The species was then placed
    
    on the CBRC's Supplemental List. With more recent records from the
    
    Pribilofs and British Columbia suggesting a pattern of occurrence, the CBRC
    
    will re-evaluate the record.
    
    The Introduced Birds Subcommittee (IBSC), headed up by Kimball Garrett, will
    
    continue to monitor whether any introduced species warrant addition to the
    
    State List. Research into distribution, habitat associations, breeding
    
    biology, and trends in abundance of introduced species is needed before the
    
    CBRC is likely to add any new introduced species to the state list.
    
    Please feel free to visit the CBRC's webpage at
    
    http://www.californiabirds.org/ for updates and additional information. If
    
    you have any questions about the CBRC, please contact Steve Rottenborn
    
    ( chair@... ) or Tom
    
    Benson ( secretary@...
    
    ).
    
    Finally, I (KLG) will continue to serve as the occasional CBRC
    
    "spokesperson" on Calbirds for the coming year.
    
    Kimball L. Garrett
    
    Ornithology Collections Manager
    
    Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
    
    900 Exposition Blvd.
    
    Los Angeles, CA 90007 USA
    
    kgarrett@...
    
    
  12. -back to top-
  13. News from the California Bird Records Committee LINK
    DATE: Jan 24, 2018 @ 12:02pm, 4 month(s) ago
    Birders,
    
    The California Bird Records Committee held its annual meeting in Los Gatos 19-20 January. Steve Rottenborn, CBRC Chair, has provided the following highlights of that meeting along with some recent CBRC decisions.
    
    COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Dan Singer, Peter Pyle, and Jim Pike were elected as voting members. Steve Rottenborn, Dan Singer, and Tom Benson were elected as Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary, respectively. The terms of Lauren Harter, Kristie Nelson, and Scott Terrill
    expired.
    
    STATE LIST Recently accepted additions to the California list are all from offshore islands - Jouanin's Petrel (1 Jun 2016, Santa Barbara Island, SBA), Kermadec Petrel (8 Sep 2017, Southeast Farallon Island, SF), and Eurasian Wryneck (25 Sep 2017,
    San Clemente Island, LA). With these additions, the state list stands at 668 species. Other potential first state records awaiting CBRC review include Band-rumped Storm Petrel (10-11 Nov 2017, Southeast Farallon Island, SF), Citrine Wagtail (15-16 Dec 2017,
    Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area, YOL), and Tropical Parula (5 Jan 2018-present, Huntington Beach, ORA).
    
    REVIEW LIST Dusky-capped Flycatcher was removed from the Review List on the basis of the number of accepted records (110 at the time of the meeting, with an average of 4.3/year over the last 10 years) and relatively high acceptance rate (89%). All
    five current wintering Dusky-capped Flycatchers that were first recorded in 2017 will still be reviewed; please send your documentation for these individuals, or any other review species, to the CBRC secretary at
    secretary@... or by using the online form at
    http://www.californiabirds.org/report_sighting.html .
    
    OTHER DISCUSSIONS/DECISIONS Identification of adult Masked and Nazca boobies is straightforward given adequate views, but identification of subadults is more challenging. Along with the recent increase in numbers of adult Masked and, especially, Nazca boobies
    in California, the Committee has wrestled with the identity of a number of subadult birds. To supplement information in the identification literature, the CBRC reached out to experts Robert Pitman and Mike Force for information on how quickly subadults start
    to acquire the "adult" bill color, how reliable the presence/extent of white on the central rectrices is for identification, and how frequently hybridization between the two species occurs. More information on all these issues is needed, but it appears that
    some immatures begin to acquire the greenish (Masked) or pinkish (Nazca) bill color after about a year, and the presence of those colors is the most reliable field character. Until those colors are apparent in the bill, reliable identification may not be
    possible. Presence of extensive white in the central rectrices is suggestive of Nazca, but some Nazcas lack extensive white, and a small percentage of Masked Boobies can show extensive white. Hybridization between the two species does occur, but hybrids
    are apparently infrequent enough that the probability of encountering one is very low. Using these ID criteria, the CBRC is accepting a number of records to species, but juveniles, as well as subadults that are not well seen or that lack expression of some
    "adult" bill color, may be accepted only as "Masked/Nazca Booby".
    
    The Committee discussed photos of a California Blue-headed/Cassin's Vireo that looked quite good for Blue-headed in lower-light exposures (with apparently sharp demarcation between dark auriculars and white throat) and much better for
    Cassin's in more strongly lit or better exposed images, which blurred the demarcation between the auriculars and throat. The images of this individual emphasized the importance of obtaining as much documentation of putative Blue-headed Vireo records as possible
    (in this case, recordings of the song matched Cassin's well) while reiterating how difficult the identification of some Blue-headed/Cassin's Vireos can be.
    
    The Committee decided to re-evaluate the 4 Dec 1986-3 Apr 1987 record of Oriental Greenfinch from Arcata, HUM. This record was previously not accepted by the CBRC on the grounds of questionable natural occurrence, as there were no North
    American records away from the western Aleutians at the time and the Committee was concerned about the potential for the bird to have escaped (or been released) from captivity. The species was then placed on the CBRC's Supplemental List. With more recent
    records from the Pribilofs and British Columbia suggesting a pattern of occurrence, the CBRC will re-evaluate the record.
    
    The Introduced Birds Subcommittee (IBSC), headed up by Kimball Garrett, will continue to monitor whether any introduced species warrant addition to the State List. Research into distribution, habitat associations, breeding biology,
    and trends in abundance of introduced species is needed before the CBRC is likely to add any new introduced species to the state list.
    
    Please feel free to visit the CBRC's webpage at
    http://www.californiabirds.org/ for updates and additional information. If you have any questions about the CBRC, please contact Steve Rottenborn ( chair@... ) or Tom Benson ( secretary@... ).
    
    Finally, I (KLG) will continue to serve as the occasional CBRC "spokesperson" on Calbirds for the coming year.
    
    Kimball L. Garrett Ornithology Collections Manager Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 900 Exposition Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90007 USA kgarrett@...
  14. -back to top-
  15. RE: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 19, 2018 @ 3:03pm, 4 month(s) ago
    Or, instead of contacting the person, who may be already frustrated, display the name of the reviewer on the checklist and contact him or her about ID or other issues on the list (reviewer contacts are broadly available). The reviewer, who is more experienced, ‘thicker-skinned’ and has already gone over the list, will be accountable for the final appearance of the list unless some provision is communicated that issues on the list are pending a response from the list owner. When this requirement is filled the list is no longer under provision.
    
    Geoffrey L. Rogers
    
    San Diego, CA
    
    From: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com [mailto: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of kyri@... [CALBIRDS]
    
    Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:19 PM
    
    To: CALBIRDS@yahoogroups.com
    
    Cc: Anonymous Freeman; CALBIRDS; Jim Lomax; Brian Sullivan; Bruce Barrett; Gjon Hazard
    
    Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant [a bit long]
    
    In terms of contacting the person: in a very quick survey on eBird, you
    
    are correct; clicking on a checklist gets you some personal information
    
    but not a way to contact the person. Is there a role for commenting on
    
    eBird, or would that open a whole can of worms I'm not sure.
    
    The exact location: That's not a good job of reporting if they didn't
    
    specify clearly where the bird was.
    
    In terms of standard for eBird reports, what would be helpful to me is
    
    some kind of rubric. What level of detail is requested (or does it
    
    absolutely have to be a photo) for a rare, unseasonal, or otherwise
    
    perhaps questionable species What data do the reviewers want to see I
    
    want a high standard of data to be upheld. But I would hope the reporting
    
    that is expected is the same for everyone.
    
    So, to make a long post a bit shorter, what about having a linked rubric,
    
    perhaps individualized by county, clarifying exactly what is expected of
    
    rare/unusual reports That would be helpful and would reduce any
    
    appearance of inequity.
    
    Kyri Freeman
    
    Barstow, CA
    
    > 1. The mechanism for this may exist, but I'm not aware of it: sometimes I
    
    > want to ask one of the people who have entered a bird into eBird for some
    
    > information. The specific information might be different things at
    
    > different times, but there's always a good reason why. However, there are
    
    > all these people who enter sightings into eBird, who I have never heard of
    
    > in my life. I do not have contact information for them, so I can't ask
    
    > them
    
    > where exactly in that 200-acre park they saw the bird I'm interested in.
    
    > 2.Typically the information about that I am seeking is hidden underneath a
    
    > pile of 30 entries in which 29 of the observers wrote "continuing.." Then,
    
    > when I write an email to the appropriate email list asking for specifics,
    
    > I
    
    > always get the one email that says "the info is there on eBird." The
    
    > assumption is that I am lazy, and didn't do my homework.
    
    > 3. "I am, however, extremely frustrated with the eBird reviewer unspoken
    
    > requirement that one must have an expensive camera or be a member of the
    
    > local ruling cabal to have records of anything even very slightly out of
    
    > the ordinary accepted."
    
    > Kyrie, a lot of us have had that bad experience. This is a major
    
    > frustration that I have with eBird: sure, there are some incredibly
    
    > competent and thoughtful people like Kimball Garrett, and I'm not saying
    
    > that to kiss up to him, who are reliable and very good at teaching (why
    
    > your bird is not this species, but the other species). But what about when
    
    > you are dealing with an eBird editor who makes up their own rules There
    
    > is
    
    > no appeals process that I'm aware of. If there is, please let me know
    
    > about
    
    > it. This is actually a big problem. I have had a couple of different
    
    > people
    
    > who have eBird authority make some incredibly unscientific, and let's be
    
    > honest, unprofessional statements to me (while stuck in traffic I have
    
    > composed a long angry emails to them letting them know how dumb they are,
    
    > but never actually bothered to sit down and type these rants). In my job
    
    > if
    
    > I made these types of statements that they make, the crowd of people in
    
    > the
    
    > room with me who all have science degrees would drag me out to the parking
    
    > lot and beat me senseless. I appreciate that there is a vigorous attempt
    
    > to
    
    > apply scientific rigor to this process, but in that case perhaps there
    
    > should be restriction that only people with degrees in biology or physics
    
    > (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) or chemistry are allowed to be eBird editors.
    
    > If
    
    > you think this is a baseless rant, contact me offline and I will tell you
    
    > some stories that will make your hair spontaneously catch on fire.
    
    > Tom Miko
    
    > LA County
    
    > Claremont at night, somewhere in traffic during the day.
    
    > 909.241.3300
    
    >
    
    >
    
    > On Jan 16, 2018 10:11 PM, " kyri@... [CALBIRDS] " <
    
    > CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >> My .02:
    
    >>
    
    >> I am in favor of all sorts of information. More, not less. Different
    
    >> formats work for different people. I find the search function of eBird
    
    >> more helpful than Yahoo groups, but I also find the phone app clunky and
    
    >> prefer to take written field notes and do my eBird report later. When it
    
    >> comes to information, as long as accuracy is there, I think variety is
    
    >> good.
    
    >>
    
    >> I find that listservs often are overly censorious when dealing with
    
    >> newbies and newcomers to specific areas. It is possible, in theory, to
    
    >> correct an error without making the person never, ever want to report a
    
    >> bird again.
    
    >>
    
    >> I am, however, extremely frustrated with the eBird reviewer unspoken
    
    >> requirement that one must have an expensive camera or be a member of the
    
    >> local ruling cabal to have records of anything even very slightly out of
    
    >> the ordinary accepted.
    
    >>
    
    >> Kyri Freeman
    
    >> Barstow, CA
    
    >>
    
    >> > Do not eliminate the list-serves and improve the quality of eBirds. I
    
    >> am
    
    >> > not in favor of eBird reviewers being forced to accept photo records
    
    >> when
    
    >> > they cannot confirm those photos were even taken in the location in
    
    >> the
    
    >> > record. If they question the submitter and there is no response that
    
    >> > record should be eliminated. We should never replace the state record
    
    >> > committees under any circumstances.
    
    >> > Leonie Batkin
    
    >> >
    
    >> > Sent from my iPhone
    
    >> >
    
    >> >> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@... [CALBIRDS]
    
    >> >> < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >> The question is: Should ebird replace the California Records
    
    >> Committee
    
    >> >> The answer is firmly NO.
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >> All this other discussion is nice and I’m glad things are
    
    >> improving. I
    
    >> >> hope it works out.
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >> Jim
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Brian Sullivan < heraldpetrel@... >
    
    >> >>> wrote:
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> Hi All,
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> As someone who has worked closely with the eBird team since 2005, I
    
    >> can
    
    >> >>> assure you that we, and everyone at the Lab, greatly value the work
    
    >> >>> done by regional bird records committees. The stringent review
    
    >> process
    
    >> >>> employed by records committees is perfect for consideration of very
    
    >> >>> important records, and eBird policy is to adhere to these finalized
    
    >> >>> decisions. The bird records committee process is also highly
    
    >> valuable
    
    >> >>> in situations where the details and evidence aren't exactly a 'slam
    
    >> >>> dunk', and a more thoughtful and careful committee-based review
    
    >> >>> decision is necessary. If there are great photos of an easily
    
    >> >>> identified rarity (e.g., adult Ross's Gull etc.), eBird
    
    >> provisionally
    
    >> >>> accepts the record pending formal acceptance by the relevant bird
    
    >> >>> records committee. This allows the information to get out there in a
    
    >> >>> broader way to the community of people looking to eBird for rare
    
    >> bird
    
    >> >>> information.. eBird's nearly 3000 global data reviewers work
    
    >> tirelessly
    
    >> >>> and often thanklessly on a volunteer basis. We greatly appreciate
    
    >> all
    
    >> >>> their hard work, input, and commitment to the project--without them,
    
    >> >>> eBird would cease to exist..
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> One thing worth pointing out is that the eBird review process is
    
    >> always
    
    >> >>> evolving, and hopefully becoming more refined over time. It strives
    
    >> to
    
    >> >>> achieve a high level of accuracy in the data while balancing a
    
    >> number
    
    >> >>> of other considerations, not least of which being scale and
    
    >> usability..
    
    >> >>> With more than 10 million records a month passing through eBird, the
    
    >> >>> time is near for a complete overhaul of the way the review process
    
    >> >>> works. Look for continued improvements in the next 12-18 months on
    
    >> this
    
    >> >>> front. For now, you can read about how the review process works on
    
    >> >>> eBird here:
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> http://help.ebird.org/customer/portal/articles/1055676
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> It ain't perfect, that's for sure. But we're working to improve it
    
    >> >>> every day.
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> Thanks
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> Brian
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Barrett coddler@...
    
    >> >>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Perhaps you are mixing two objectives Jim.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Long-term accuracy: The eBird review system aims at producing the
    
    >> same
    
    >> >>>> clean data-base of rare sightings that any RBC strives for..
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Put another way, and putting the is it "countable" issue to one
    
    >> side,
    
    >> >>>> what does the average RBC provide that a well-reviewed eBird does
    
    >> not
    
    >> >>>> - or could not - especially if each RBC member put the same amount
    
    >> of
    
    >> >>>> time into reviewing eBird sightings
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Front-end Speed: In the meantime, let's get the information out as
    
    >> >>>> fast as possible - warts and all. Surely one accurate and fast
    
    >> >>>> Tropical Parula report is worth a lot of noise that must be
    
    >> >>>> subsequently cleaned out.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> I suggest that the very same unfiltered front-end that allows the
    
    >> >>>> noise also encourages everyone to submit their rare bird sightings
    
    >> >>>> faster and more frequently than most of us ever do to the RBC.
    
    >> Indeed,
    
    >> >>>> every California RBC report seems to contain notes of sightings for
    
    >> >>>> which they have not received a single report. I'm willing to bet
    
    >> that
    
    >> >>>> on eBird the average rare bird gets a lot more data submitted than
    
    >> >>>> ever gets sent to the RBC, so there is a lot more evidence for the
    
    >> >>>> reviewers to consider.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> It has been noted that not everyone is yet a member of eBird. OK,
    
    >> so
    
    >> >>>> until eBird is truly universal, provide an RBC-like portal - just
    
    >> to
    
    >> >>>> capture their reports.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Another benefit of migrating RBC's to eBird is that eBird provides
    
    >> a
    
    >> >>>> degree of national consistency, for example, in the treatment of
    
    >> >>>> introduced birds, information required for inclusion, data base
    
    >> >>>> management, etc.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> eBird is by no means perfect, so pointing out where it currently
    
    >> does
    
    >> >>>> not fully replace RBC's is fair game, but surely it should/can be
    
    >> >>>> adjusted.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Bruce Barrett
    
    >> >>>> San Jose, CA
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@...
    
    >> >>>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>> Considering the huge number of erroneous ebird reports, some even
    
    >> >>>>> documented with photos, from people either too lazy or
    
    >> don’t care
    
    >> >>>>> enough to study a bird guide but don’t mind asking for
    
    >> someone else
    
    >> >>>>> to identify their birds, I think having a panel of knowledgeable
    
    >> >>>>> people to sort through all the “claims" would keep the
    
    >> birding in
    
    >> >>>>> California a lot more credible than ebird.
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>> Jim Lomax
    
    >> >>>>> From No Particular Place
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Gjon Hazard gjon_hazard@...
    
    >> >>>>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >> >>>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>> At the risk of being branded a heretic (again), I wonder if Bird
    
    >> >>>>>> Records Committees are still relevant in the age of eBird
    
    >> >>>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>> -Gjon
    
    >> >>>>>> San Diego County
    
    >> >>>>>>
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >
    
    >>
    
    >> --
    
    >> My dark fantasy and historical fiction novels are available for Kindle
    
    >> on
    
    >> Amazon. Print copies also available.
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >
    
    --
    
    My dark fantasy and historical fiction novels are available for Kindle on
    
    Amazon. Print copies also available.
    
    
  16. -back to top-
  17. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 18, 2018 @ 10:09pm, 4 month(s) ago
    eBird now has a "profile" option and people can put basically whatever they want there.  Maybe they/we should be encouraged to provide contact information.  I think it would be very useful - but it should be completely optional.
    
    Ken Burton
    Crescent City
    
    On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:19 PM, kyri@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
      In terms of contacting the person: in a very quick survey on eBird, you
    
    are correct; clicking on a checklist gets you some personal information
    
    but not a way to contact the person. Is there a role for commenting on
    
    eBird, or would that open a whole can of worms I'm not sure.
    
    The exact location: That's not a good job of reporting if they didn't
    
    specify clearly where the bird was.
    
    In terms of standard for eBird reports, what would be helpful to me is
    
    some kind of rubric. What level of detail is requested (or does it
    
    absolutely have to be a photo) for a rare, unseasonal, or otherwise
    
    perhaps questionable species What data do the reviewers want to see I
    
    want a high standard of data to be upheld. But I would hope the reporting
    
    that is expected is the same for everyone.
    
    So, to make a long post a bit shorter, what about having a linked rubric,
    
    perhaps individualized by county, clarifying exactly what is expected of
    
    rare/unusual reports That would be helpful and would reduce any
    
    appearance of inequity.
    
    Kyri Freeman
    
    Barstow, CA
    
    > 1. The mechanism for this may exist, but I'm not aware of it: sometimes I
    
    > want to ask one of the people who have entered a bird into eBird for some
    
    > information. The specific information might be different things at
    
    > different times, but there's always a good reason why. However, there are
    
    > all these people who enter sightings into eBird, who I have never heard of
    
    > in my life. I do not have contact information for them, so I can't ask
    
    > them
    
    > where exactly in that 200-acre park they saw the bird I'm interested in.
    
    > 2.Typically the information about that I am seeking is hidden underneath a
    
    > pile of 30 entries in which 29 of the observers wrote "continuing.." Then,
    
    > when I write an email to the appropriate email list asking for specifics,
    
    > I
    
    > always get the one email that says "the info is there on eBird." The
    
    > assumption is that I am lazy, and didn't do my homework.
    
    > 3. "I am, however, extremely frustrated with the eBird reviewer unspoken
    
    > requirement that one must have an expensive camera or be a member of the
    
    > local ruling cabal to have records of anything even very slightly out of
    
    > the ordinary accepted."
    
    > Kyrie, a lot of us have had that bad experience. This is a major
    
    > frustration that I have with eBird: sure, there are some incredibly
    
    > competent and thoughtful people like Kimball Garrett, and I'm not saying
    
    > that to kiss up to him, who are reliable and very good at teaching (why
    
    > your bird is not this species, but the other species). But what about when
    
    > you are dealing with an eBird editor who makes up their own rules There
    
    > is
    
    > no appeals process that I'm aware of. If there is, please let me know
    
    > about
    
    > it. This is actually a big problem. I have had a couple of different
    
    > people
    
    > who have eBird authority make some incredibly unscientific, and let's be
    
    > honest, unprofessional statements to me (while stuck in traffic I have
    
    > composed a long angry emails to them letting them know how dumb they are,
    
    > but never actually bothered to sit down and type these rants). In my job
    
    > if
    
    > I made these types of statements that they make, the crowd of people in
    
    > the
    
    > room with me who all have science degrees would drag me out to the parking
    
    > lot and beat me senseless. I appreciate that there is a vigorous attempt
    
    > to
    
    > apply scientific rigor to this process, but in that case perhaps there
    
    > should be restriction that only people with degrees in biology or physics
    
    > (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) or chemistry are allowed to be eBird editors.
    
    > If
    
    > you think this is a baseless rant, contact me offline and I will tell you
    
    > some stories that will make your hair spontaneously catch on fire.
    
    > Tom Miko
    
    > LA County
    
    > Claremont at night, somewhere in traffic during the day.
    
    > 909.241.3300
    
    >
    
    >
    
    > On Jan 16, 2018 10:11 PM, " kyri@... [CALBIRDS]" <
    
    > CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    >
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >> My .02:
    
    >>
    
    >> I am in favor of all sorts of information. More, not less. Different
    
    >> formats work for different people. I find the search function of eBird
    
    >> more helpful than Yahoo groups, but I also find the phone app clunky and
    
    >> prefer to take written field notes and do my eBird report later. When it
    
    >> comes to information, as long as accuracy is there, I think variety is
    
    >> good.
    
    >>
    
    >> I find that listservs often are overly censorious when dealing with
    
    >> newbies and newcomers to specific areas. It is possible, in theory, to
    
    >> correct an error without making the person never, ever want to report a
    
    >> bird again.
    
    >>
    
    >> I am, however, extremely frustrated with the eBird reviewer unspoken
    
    >> requirement that one must have an expensive camera or be a member of the
    
    >> local ruling cabal to have records of anything even very slightly out of
    
    >> the ordinary accepted.
    
    >>
    
    >> Kyri Freeman
    
    >> Barstow, CA
    
    >>
    
    >> > Do not eliminate the list-serves and improve the quality of eBirds. I
    
    >> am
    
    >> > not in favor of eBird reviewers being forced to accept photo records
    
    >> when
    
    >> > they cannot confirm those photos were even taken in the location in
    
    >> the
    
    >> > record. If they question the submitter and there is no response that
    
    >> > record should be eliminated. We should never replace the state record
    
    >> > committees under any circumstances.
    
    >> > Leonie Batkin
    
    >> >
    
    >> > Sent from my iPhone
    
    >> >
    
    >> >> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@... [CALBIRDS]
    
    >> >> < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >> The question is: Should ebird replace the California Records
    
    >> Committee
    
    >> >> The answer is firmly NO.
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >> All this other discussion is nice and I’m glad things are
    
    >> improving. I
    
    >> >> hope it works out.
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >> Jim
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Brian Sullivan < heraldpetrel@... >
    
    >> >>> wrote:
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> Hi All,
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> As someone who has worked closely with the eBird team since 2005, I
    
    >> can
    
    >> >>> assure you that we, and everyone at the Lab, greatly value the work
    
    >> >>> done by regional bird records committees. The stringent review
    
    >> process
    
    >> >>> employed by records committees is perfect for consideration of very
    
    >> >>> important records, and eBird policy is to adhere to these finalized
    
    >> >>> decisions. The bird records committee process is also highly
    
    >> valuable
    
    >> >>> in situations where the details and evidence aren't exactly a 'slam
    
    >> >>> dunk', and a more thoughtful and careful committee-based review
    
    >> >>> decision is necessary. If there are great photos of an easily
    
    >> >>> identified rarity (e.g., adult Ross's Gull etc.), eBird
    
    >> provisionally
    
    >> >>> accepts the record pending formal acceptance by the relevant bird
    
    >> >>> records committee. This allows the information to get out there in a
    
    >> >>> broader way to the community of people looking to eBird for rare
    
    >> bird
    
    >> >>> information.. eBird's nearly 3000 global data reviewers work
    
    >> tirelessly
    
    >> >>> and often thanklessly on a volunteer basis. We greatly appreciate
    
    >> all
    
    >> >>> their hard work, input, and commitment to the project--without them,
    
    >> >>> eBird would cease to exist..
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> One thing worth pointing out is that the eBird review process is
    
    >> always
    
    >> >>> evolving, and hopefully becoming more refined over time. It strives
    
    >> to
    
    >> >>> achieve a high level of accuracy in the data while balancing a
    
    >> number
    
    >> >>> of other considerations, not least of which being scale and
    
    >> usability..
    
    >> >>> With more than 10 million records a month passing through eBird, the
    
    >> >>> time is near for a complete overhaul of the way the review process
    
    >> >>> works. Look for continued improvements in the next 12-18 months on
    
    >> this
    
    >> >>> front. For now, you can read about how the review process works on
    
    >> >>> eBird here:
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> http://help.ebird.org/ customer/portal/articles/ 1055676
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> It ain't perfect, that's for sure. But we're working to improve it
    
    >> >>> every day.
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> Thanks
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> Brian
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Barrett coddler@...
    
    >> >>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Perhaps you are mixing two objectives Jim.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Long-term accuracy: The eBird review system aims at producing the
    
    >> same
    
    >> >>>> clean data-base of rare sightings that any RBC strives for..
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Put another way, and putting the is it "countable" issue to one
    
    >> side,
    
    >> >>>> what does the average RBC provide that a well-reviewed eBird does
    
    >> not
    
    >> >>>> - or could not - especially if each RBC member put the same amount
    
    >> of
    
    >> >>>> time into reviewing eBird sightings
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Front-end Speed: In the meantime, let's get the information out as
    
    >> >>>> fast as possible - warts and all. Surely one accurate and fast
    
    >> >>>> Tropical Parula report is worth a lot of noise that must be
    
    >> >>>> subsequently cleaned out.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> I suggest that the very same unfiltered front-end that allows the
    
    >> >>>> noise also encourages everyone to submit their rare bird sightings
    
    >> >>>> faster and more frequently than most of us ever do to the RBC.
    
    >> Indeed,
    
    >> >>>> every California RBC report seems to contain notes of sightings for
    
    >> >>>> which they have not received a single report. I'm willing to bet
    
    >> that
    
    >> >>>> on eBird the average rare bird gets a lot more data submitted than
    
    >> >>>> ever gets sent to the RBC, so there is a lot more evidence for the
    
    >> >>>> reviewers to consider.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> It has been noted that not everyone is yet a member of eBird. OK,
    
    >> so
    
    >> >>>> until eBird is truly universal, provide an RBC-like portal - just
    
    >> to
    
    >> >>>> capture their reports.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Another benefit of migrating RBC's to eBird is that eBird provides
    
    >> a
    
    >> >>>> degree of national consistency, for example, in the treatment of
    
    >> >>>> introduced birds, information required for inclusion, data base
    
    >> >>>> management, etc.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> eBird is by no means perfect, so pointing out where it currently
    
    >> does
    
    >> >>>> not fully replace RBC's is fair game, but surely it should/can be
    
    >> >>>> adjusted.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Bruce Barrett
    
    >> >>>> San Jose, CA
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@...
    
    >> >>>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>> Considering the huge number of erroneous ebird reports, some even
    
    >> >>>>> documented with photos, from people either too lazy or
    
    >> don’t care
    
    >> >>>>> enough to study a bird guide but don’t mind asking for
    
    >> someone else
    
    >> >>>>> to identify their birds, I think having a panel of knowledgeable
    
    >> >>>>> people to sort through all the “claims" would keep the
    
    >> birding in
    
    >> >>>>> California a lot more credible than ebird.
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>> Jim Lomax
    
    >> >>>>> From No Particular Place
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Gjon Hazard gjon_hazard@...
    
    >> >>>>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    >> >>>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>> At the risk of being branded a heretic (again), I wonder if Bird
    
    >> >>>>>> Records Committees are still relevant in the age of eBird
    
    >> >>>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>> -Gjon
    
    >> >>>>>> San Diego County
    
    >> >>>>>>
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >
    
    >>
    
    >> --
    
    >> My dark fantasy and historical fiction novels are available for Kindle
    
    >> on
    
    >> Amazon. Print copies also available.
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >
    
    --
    
    My dark fantasy and historical fiction novels are available for Kindle on
    
    Amazon. Print copies also available.
  18. -back to top-
  19. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 18, 2018 @ 9:19pm, 4 month(s) ago
    In terms of contacting the person: in a very quick survey on eBird, you
    
    are correct; clicking on a checklist gets you some personal information
    
    but not a way to contact the person. Is there a role for commenting on
    
    eBird, or would that open a whole can of worms I'm not sure.
    
    The exact location: That's not a good job of reporting if they didn't
    
    specify clearly where the bird was.
    
    In terms of standard for eBird reports, what would be helpful to me is
    
    some kind of rubric. What level of detail is requested (or does it
    
    absolutely have to be a photo) for a rare, unseasonal, or otherwise
    
    perhaps questionable species What data do the reviewers want to see I
    
    want a high standard of data to be upheld. But I would hope the reporting
    
    that is expected is the same for everyone.
    
    So, to make a long post a bit shorter, what about having a linked rubric,
    
    perhaps individualized by county, clarifying exactly what is expected of
    
    rare/unusual reports That would be helpful and would reduce any
    
    appearance of inequity.
    
    Kyri Freeman
    
    Barstow, CA
    
    > 1. The mechanism for this may exist, but I'm not aware of it: sometimes I
    
    > want to ask one of the people who have entered a bird into eBird for some
    
    > information. The specific information might be different things at
    
    > different times, but there's always a good reason why. However, there are
    
    > all these people who enter sightings into eBird, who I have never heard of
    
    > in my life. I do not have contact information for them, so I can't ask
    
    > them
    
    > where exactly in that 200-acre park they saw the bird I'm interested in.
    
    > 2.Typically the information about that I am seeking is hidden underneath a
    
    > pile of 30 entries in which 29 of the observers wrote "continuing." Then,
    
    > when I write an email to the appropriate email list asking for specifics,
    
    > I
    
    > always get the one email that says "the info is there on eBird." The
    
    > assumption is that I am lazy, and didn't do my homework.
    
    > 3. "I am, however, extremely frustrated with the eBird reviewer unspoken
    
    > requirement that one must have an expensive camera or be a member of the
    
    > local ruling cabal to have records of anything even very slightly out of
    
    > the ordinary accepted."
    
    > Kyrie, a lot of us have had that bad experience. This is a major
    
    > frustration that I have with eBird: sure, there are some incredibly
    
    > competent and thoughtful people like Kimball Garrett, and I'm not saying
    
    > that to kiss up to him, who are reliable and very good at teaching (why
    
    > your bird is not this species, but the other species). But what about when
    
    > you are dealing with an eBird editor who makes up their own rules There
    
    > is
    
    > no appeals process that I'm aware of. If there is, please let me know
    
    > about
    
    > it. This is actually a big problem. I have had a couple of different
    
    > people
    
    > who have eBird authority make some incredibly unscientific, and let's be
    
    > honest, unprofessional statements to me (while stuck in traffic I have
    
    > composed a long angry emails to them letting them know how dumb they are,
    
    > but never actually bothered to sit down and type these rants). In my job
    
    > if
    
    > I made these types of statements that they make, the crowd of people in
    
    > the
    
    > room with me who all have science degrees would drag me out to the parking
    
    > lot and beat me senseless. I appreciate that there is a vigorous attempt
    
    > to
    
    > apply scientific rigor to this process, but in that case perhaps there
    
    > should be restriction that only people with degrees in biology or physics
    
    > (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) or chemistry are allowed to be eBird editors.
    
    > If
    
    > you think this is a baseless rant, contact me offline and I will tell you
    
    > some stories that will make your hair spontaneously catch on fire.
    
    > Tom Miko
    
    > LA County
    
    > Claremont at night, somewhere in traffic during the day.
    
    > 909.241.3300
    
    >
    
    >
    
    > On Jan 16, 2018 10:11 PM, " kyri@... [CALBIRDS]" <
    
    > CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >> My .02:
    
    >>
    
    >> I am in favor of all sorts of information. More, not less. Different
    
    >> formats work for different people. I find the search function of eBird
    
    >> more helpful than Yahoo groups, but I also find the phone app clunky and
    
    >> prefer to take written field notes and do my eBird report later. When it
    
    >> comes to information, as long as accuracy is there, I think variety is
    
    >> good.
    
    >>
    
    >> I find that listservs often are overly censorious when dealing with
    
    >> newbies and newcomers to specific areas. It is possible, in theory, to
    
    >> correct an error without making the person never, ever want to report a
    
    >> bird again.
    
    >>
    
    >> I am, however, extremely frustrated with the eBird reviewer unspoken
    
    >> requirement that one must have an expensive camera or be a member of the
    
    >> local ruling cabal to have records of anything even very slightly out of
    
    >> the ordinary accepted.
    
    >>
    
    >> Kyri Freeman
    
    >> Barstow, CA
    
    >>
    
    >> > Do not eliminate the list-serves and improve the quality of eBirds. I
    
    >> am
    
    >> > not in favor of eBird reviewers being forced to accept photo records
    
    >> when
    
    >> > they cannot confirm those photos were even taken in the location in
    
    >> the
    
    >> > record. If they question the submitter and there is no response that
    
    >> > record should be eliminated. We should never replace the state record
    
    >> > committees under any circumstances.
    
    >> > Leonie Batkin
    
    >> >
    
    >> > Sent from my iPhone
    
    >> >
    
    >> >> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@... [CALBIRDS]
    
    >> >> < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >> The question is: Should ebird replace the California Records
    
    >> Committee
    
    >> >> The answer is firmly NO.
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >> All this other discussion is nice and Iââ¬â˘m glad things are
    
    >> improving. I
    
    >> >> hope it works out.
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >> Jim
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Brian Sullivan < heraldpetrel@... >
    
    >> >>> wrote:
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> Hi All,
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> As someone who has worked closely with the eBird team since 2005, I
    
    >> can
    
    >> >>> assure you that we, and everyone at the Lab, greatly value the work
    
    >> >>> done by regional bird records committees. The stringent review
    
    >> process
    
    >> >>> employed by records committees is perfect for consideration of very
    
    >> >>> important records, and eBird policy is to adhere to these finalized
    
    >> >>> decisions. The bird records committee process is also highly
    
    >> valuable
    
    >> >>> in situations where the details and evidence aren't exactly a 'slam
    
    >> >>> dunk', and a more thoughtful and careful committee-based review
    
    >> >>> decision is necessary. If there are great photos of an easily
    
    >> >>> identified rarity (e.g., adult Ross's Gull etc.), eBird
    
    >> provisionally
    
    >> >>> accepts the record pending formal acceptance by the relevant bird
    
    >> >>> records committee. This allows the information to get out there in a
    
    >> >>> broader way to the community of people looking to eBird for rare
    
    >> bird
    
    >> >>> information.. eBird's nearly 3000 global data reviewers work
    
    >> tirelessly
    
    >> >>> and often thanklessly on a volunteer basis. We greatly appreciate
    
    >> all
    
    >> >>> their hard work, input, and commitment to the project--without them,
    
    >> >>> eBird would cease to exist..
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> One thing worth pointing out is that the eBird review process is
    
    >> always
    
    >> >>> evolving, and hopefully becoming more refined over time. It strives
    
    >> to
    
    >> >>> achieve a high level of accuracy in the data while balancing a
    
    >> number
    
    >> >>> of other considerations, not least of which being scale and
    
    >> usability..
    
    >> >>> With more than 10 million records a month passing through eBird, the
    
    >> >>> time is near for a complete overhaul of the way the review process
    
    >> >>> works. Look for continued improvements in the next 12-18 months on
    
    >> this
    
    >> >>> front. For now, you can read about how the review process works on
    
    >> >>> eBird here:
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> http://help.ebird.org/customer/portal/articles/1055676
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> It ain't perfect, that's for sure. But we're working to improve it
    
    >> >>> every day.
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> Thanks
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>> Brian
    
    >> >>>
    
    >> >>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Barrett coddler@...
    
    >> >>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Perhaps you are mixing two objectives Jim.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Long-term accuracy: The eBird review system aims at producing the
    
    >> same
    
    >> >>>> clean data-base of rare sightings that any RBC strives for..
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Put another way, and putting the is it "countable" issue to one
    
    >> side,
    
    >> >>>> what does the average RBC provide that a well-reviewed eBird does
    
    >> not
    
    >> >>>> - or could not - especially if each RBC member put the same amount
    
    >> of
    
    >> >>>> time into reviewing eBird sightings
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Front-end Speed: In the meantime, let's get the information out as
    
    >> >>>> fast as possible - warts and all. Surely one accurate and fast
    
    >> >>>> Tropical Parula report is worth a lot of noise that must be
    
    >> >>>> subsequently cleaned out.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> I suggest that the very same unfiltered front-end that allows the
    
    >> >>>> noise also encourages everyone to submit their rare bird sightings
    
    >> >>>> faster and more frequently than most of us ever do to the RBC.
    
    >> Indeed,
    
    >> >>>> every California RBC report seems to contain notes of sightings for
    
    >> >>>> which they have not received a single report. I'm willing to bet
    
    >> that
    
    >> >>>> on eBird the average rare bird gets a lot more data submitted than
    
    >> >>>> ever gets sent to the RBC, so there is a lot more evidence for the
    
    >> >>>> reviewers to consider.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> It has been noted that not everyone is yet a member of eBird. OK,
    
    >> so
    
    >> >>>> until eBird is truly universal, provide an RBC-like portal - just
    
    >> to
    
    >> >>>> capture their reports.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Another benefit of migrating RBC's to eBird is that eBird provides
    
    >> a
    
    >> >>>> degree of national consistency, for example, in the treatment of
    
    >> >>>> introduced birds, information required for inclusion, data base
    
    >> >>>> management, etc.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> eBird is by no means perfect, so pointing out where it currently
    
    >> does
    
    >> >>>> not fully replace RBC's is fair game, but surely it should/can be
    
    >> >>>> adjusted.
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>> Bruce Barrett
    
    >> >>>> San Jose, CA
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>
    
    >> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@...
    
    >> >>>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>> Considering the huge number of erroneous ebird reports, some even
    
    >> >>>>> documented with photos, from people either too lazy or
    
    >> donââ¬â˘t care
    
    >> >>>>> enough to study a bird guide but donââ¬â˘t mind asking for
    
    >> someone else
    
    >> >>>>> to identify their birds, I think having a panel of knowledgeable
    
    >> >>>>> people to sort through all the ââ¬Ĺclaims" would keep the
    
    >> birding in
    
    >> >>>>> California a lot more credible than ebird.
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>> Jim Lomax
    
    >> >>>>> From No Particular Place
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Gjon Hazard gjon_hazard@...
    
    >> >>>>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >> >>>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>> At the risk of being branded a heretic (again), I wonder if Bird
    
    >> >>>>>> Records Committees are still relevant in the age of eBird
    
    >> >>>>>>
    
    >> >>>>>> -Gjon
    
    >> >>>>>> San Diego County
    
    >> >>>>>>
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >>
    
    >> >
    
    >>
    
    >> --
    
    >> My dark fantasy and historical fiction novels are available for Kindle
    
    >> on
    
    >> Amazon. Print copies also available.
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >
    
    --
    
    My dark fantasy and historical fiction novels are available for Kindle on
    
    Amazon. Print copies also available.
  20. -back to top-
  21. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 18, 2018 @ 6:51pm, 4 month(s) ago
    1. The mechanism for this may exist, but I'm not aware of it:  sometimes I want to ask one of the people who have entered a bird into eBird for some information. The specific information might be different things at different times, but there's always a good reason why. However, there are all these people who enter sightings into eBird, who I have never heard of in my life. I do not have contact information for them, so I can't ask them where exactly in that 200-acre park they saw the bird I'm interested in.  2.Typically the information about that I am seeking is hidden underneath a pile of 30 entries in which 29 of the observers wrote "continuing." Then, when I write an email to the appropriate email list asking for specifics, I always get the one email that says "the info is there on eBird." The assumption is that I am lazy, and didn't do my homework.
    3. "I  am, however, extremely frustrated with the eBird reviewer unspoken
    requirement that one must have an expensive camera or be a member of the
    local ruling cabal to have records of anything even very slightly out of
    the ordinary accepted."  Kyrie, a lot of us have had that bad experience. This is a major frustration that I have with  eBird: sure, there are some incredibly competent and thoughtful people like Kimball Garrett, and I'm not saying that to kiss up to him, who are reliable and very good at teaching (why your bird is not this species, but the other species). But what about when you are dealing with an eBird editor who makes up their own rules There is no appeals process that I'm aware of. If there is, please let me know about it. This is actually a big problem. I have had a couple of different people who have eBird authority make some incredibly unscientific, and let's be honest, unprofessional statements to me (while stuck in traffic I have composed a long angry emails to them letting them know how dumb they are, but never actually bothered to sit down and type these rants). In my job if I made these types of statements that they make, the crowd of people in the room with me who all have science degrees would drag me out to the parking lot and beat me senseless. I appreciate that there is a vigorous attempt to apply scientific rigor to this process, but in that case perhaps there should be restriction that only people with degrees in biology or physics (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) or chemistry are allowed to be eBird editors. If you think this is a baseless rant, contact me offline and I will tell you some stories that will make your hair spontaneously catch on fire. 
    Tom Miko
    LA County
    Claremont at night, somewhere in traffic  during the day.
    909.241.3300
    
    On Jan 16, 2018 10:11 PM, " kyri@... [CALBIRDS]" < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
      My .02:
    
    I am in favor of all sorts of information. More, not less. Different
    
    formats work for different people. I find the search function of eBird
    
    more helpful than Yahoo groups, but I also find the phone app clunky and
    
    prefer to take written field notes and do my eBird report later. When it
    
    comes to information, as long as accuracy is there, I think variety is
    
    good.
    
    I find that listservs often are overly censorious when dealing with
    
    newbies and newcomers to specific areas. It is possible, in theory, to
    
    correct an error without making the person never, ever want to report a
    
    bird again.
    
    I am, however, extremely frustrated with the eBird reviewer unspoken
    
    requirement that one must have an expensive camera or be a member of the
    
    local ruling cabal to have records of anything even very slightly out of
    
    the ordinary accepted.
    
    Kyri Freeman
    
    Barstow, CA
    
    > Do not eliminate the list-serves and improve the quality of eBirds. I am
    
    > not in favor of eBird reviewers being forced to accept photo records when
    
    > they cannot confirm those photos were even taken in the location in the
    
    > record. If they question the submitter and there is no response that
    
    > record should be eliminated. We should never replace the state record
    
    > committees under any circumstances.
    
    > Leonie Batkin
    
    >
    
    > Sent from my iPhone
    
    >
    
    >> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@... [CALBIRDS]
    
    >> < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    >>
    
    >> The question is: Should ebird replace the California Records Committee
    
    >> The answer is firmly NO.
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >> All this other discussion is nice and I’m glad things are improving. I
    
    >> hope it works out.
    
    >>
    
    >> Jim
    
    >>
    
    >>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Brian Sullivan < heraldpetrel@... >
    
    >>> wrote:
    
    >>>
    
    >>> Hi All,
    
    >>>
    
    >>> As someone who has worked closely with the eBird team since 2005, I can
    
    >>> assure you that we, and everyone at the Lab, greatly value the work
    
    >>> done by regional bird records committees. The stringent review process
    
    >>> employed by records committees is perfect for consideration of very
    
    >>> important records, and eBird policy is to adhere to these finalized
    
    >>> decisions. The bird records committee process is also highly valuable
    
    >>> in situations where the details and evidence aren't exactly a 'slam
    
    >>> dunk', and a more thoughtful and careful committee-based review
    
    >>> decision is necessary. If there are great photos of an easily
    
    >>> identified rarity (e.g., adult Ross's Gull etc.), eBird provisionally
    
    >>> accepts the record pending formal acceptance by the relevant bird
    
    >>> records committee. This allows the information to get out there in a
    
    >>> broader way to the community of people looking to eBird for rare bird
    
    >>> information.. eBird's nearly 3000 global data reviewers work tirelessly
    
    >>> and often thanklessly on a volunteer basis. We greatly appreciate all
    
    >>> their hard work, input, and commitment to the project--without them,
    
    >>> eBird would cease to exist..
    
    >>>
    
    >>> One thing worth pointing out is that the eBird review process is always
    
    >>> evolving, and hopefully becoming more refined over time. It strives to
    
    >>> achieve a high level of accuracy in the data while balancing a number
    
    >>> of other considerations, not least of which being scale and usability.
    
    >>> With more than 10 million records a month passing through eBird, the
    
    >>> time is near for a complete overhaul of the way the review process
    
    >>> works. Look for continued improvements in the next 12-18 months on this
    
    >>> front. For now, you can read about how the review process works on
    
    >>> eBird here:
    
    >>>
    
    >>> http://help.ebird.org/ customer/portal/articles/ 1055676
    
    >>>
    
    >>> It ain't perfect, that's for sure. But we're working to improve it
    
    >>> every day.
    
    >>>
    
    >>> Thanks
    
    >>>
    
    >>> Brian
    
    >>>
    
    >>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Barrett coddler@...
    
    >>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Perhaps you are mixing two objectives Jim.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Long-term accuracy: The eBird review system aims at producing the same
    
    >>>> clean data-base of rare sightings that any RBC strives for..
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Put another way, and putting the is it "countable" issue to one side,
    
    >>>> what does the average RBC provide that a well-reviewed eBird does not
    
    >>>> - or could not - especially if each RBC member put the same amount of
    
    >>>> time into reviewing eBird sightings
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Front-end Speed: In the meantime, let's get the information out as
    
    >>>> fast as possible - warts and all. Surely one accurate and fast
    
    >>>> Tropical Parula report is worth a lot of noise that must be
    
    >>>> subsequently cleaned out.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> I suggest that the very same unfiltered front-end that allows the
    
    >>>> noise also encourages everyone to submit their rare bird sightings
    
    >>>> faster and more frequently than most of us ever do to the RBC. Indeed,
    
    >>>> every California RBC report seems to contain notes of sightings for
    
    >>>> which they have not received a single report. I'm willing to bet that
    
    >>>> on eBird the average rare bird gets a lot more data submitted than
    
    >>>> ever gets sent to the RBC, so there is a lot more evidence for the
    
    >>>> reviewers to consider.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> It has been noted that not everyone is yet a member of eBird. OK, so
    
    >>>> until eBird is truly universal, provide an RBC-like portal - just to
    
    >>>> capture their reports.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Another benefit of migrating RBC's to eBird is that eBird provides a
    
    >>>> degree of national consistency, for example, in the treatment of
    
    >>>> introduced birds, information required for inclusion, data base
    
    >>>> management, etc.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> eBird is by no means perfect, so pointing out where it currently does
    
    >>>> not fully replace RBC's is fair game, but surely it should/can be
    
    >>>> adjusted.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Bruce Barrett
    
    >>>> San Jose, CA
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@...
    
    >>>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>> Considering the huge number of erroneous ebird reports, some even
    
    >>>>> documented with photos, from people either too lazy or don’t care
    
    >>>>> enough to study a bird guide but don’t mind asking for someone else
    
    >>>>> to identify their birds, I think having a panel of knowledgeable
    
    >>>>> people to sort through all the “claims" would keep the birding in
    
    >>>>> California a lot more credible than ebird.
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>> Jim Lomax
    
    >>>>> From No Particular Place
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Gjon Hazard gjon_hazard@...
    
    >>>>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    >>>>>>
    
    >>>>>> At the risk of being branded a heretic (again), I wonder if Bird
    
    >>>>>> Records Committees are still relevant in the age of eBird
    
    >>>>>>
    
    >>>>>> -Gjon
    
    >>>>>> San Diego County
    
    >>>>>>
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >
    
    --
    
    My dark fantasy and historical fiction novels are available for Kindle on
    
    Amazon. Print copies also available.
  22. -back to top-
  23. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 17, 2018 @ 11:00am, 4 month(s) ago
    I would think any photographer documenting a rare bird would have the GPS features active on the camera. I understand this may be an issue on private property. I have not posted many photos on Ebird so I am not sure if the coordinates are always visible.
    Doug Shaw
    Santa Rosa, CA, Sonoma County On January 16, 2018 at 7:32 PM "Leonie Batkin leonie.batkin23@... [CALBIRDS]" wrote:
    
      Do not eliminate the list-serves and improve the quality of eBirds..  I am not in favor of eBird reviewers being forced to accept photo records when they cannot confirm those photos were even taken in the location in the record.  If they question the submitter and there is no response that record should be eliminated.  We should never replace the state record committees under any circumstances.   Leonie Batkin 
    
    Sent from my iPhone
    
    On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
      The question is: Should ebird replace the California Records Committee The answer is firmly NO.
    
    All this other discussion is nice and I’m glad things are improving. I hope it works out.
    
    Jim
    
    On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Brian Sullivan < heraldpetrel@... > wrote:
    
    Hi All,
    
    As someone who has worked closely with the eBird team since 2005, I can assure you that we, and everyone at the Lab, greatly value the work done by regional bird records committees. The stringent review process employed by records committees is perfect for consideration of very important records, and eBird policy is to adhere to these finalized decisions. The bird records committee process is also highly valuable in situations where the details and evidence aren't exactly a 'slam dunk', and a more thoughtful and careful committee-based review decision is necessary. If there are great photos of an easily identified rarity (e.g., adult Ross's Gull etc.), eBird provisionally accepts the record pending formal acceptance by the relevant bird records committee. This allows the information to get out there in a broader way to the community of people looking to eBird for rare bird information. eBird's nearly 3000 global data reviewers work tirelessly and often thanklessly on a volunteer basis. We greatly appreciate all their hard work, input, and commitment to the project--without them, eBird would cease to exist.
    
    One thing worth pointing out is that the eBird review process is always evolving, and hopefully becoming more refined over time. It strives to achieve a high level of accuracy in the data while balancing a number of other considerations, not least of which being scale and usability. With more than 10 million records a month passing through eBird, the time is near for a complete overhaul of the way the review process works. Look for continued improvements in the next 12-18 months on this front. For now, you can read about how the review process works on eBird here:
    
    http://help.ebird.org/customer/portal/articles/1055676
    
    It ain't perfect, that's for sure. But we're working to improve it every day.
    
    Thanks
    
    Brian
    
    On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Barrett coddler@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
     
    
    Perhaps you are mixing two objectives Jim.
    
    Long-term accuracy: The eBird review system aims at producing the same clean data-base of rare sightings that any RBC strives for.
    
    Put another way, and putting the is it "countable" issue to one side, what does the average RBC provide that a well-reviewed eBird does not - or could not - especially if each RBC member put the same amount of time into reviewing eBird sightings
    
    Front-end Speed: In the meantime, let's get the information out as fast as possible - warts and all. Surely one accurate and fast Tropical Parula report is worth a lot of noise that must be subsequently cleaned out.
    
    I suggest that the very same unfiltered front-end that allows the noise also encourages everyone to submit their rare bird sightings faster and more frequently than most of us ever do to the RBC. Indeed, every California RBC report seems to contain notes of sightings for which they have not received a single report. I'm willing to bet that on eBird the average rare bird gets a lot more data submitted than ever gets sent to the RBC, so there is a lot more evidence for the reviewers to consider.
    
    It has been noted that not everyone is yet a member of eBird. OK, so until eBird is truly universal, provide an RBC-like portal - just to capture their reports.
    
    Another benefit of migrating RBC's to eBird is that eBird provides a degree of national consistency, for example, in the treatment of introduced birds, information required for inclusion, data base management, etc.
    
    eBird is by no means perfect, so pointing out where it currently does not fully replace RBC's is fair game, but surely it should/can be adjusted.
    
    Bruce Barrett
    San Jose, CA
    
    On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
      Considering the huge number of erroneous ebird reports, some even documented with photos, from people either too lazy or don’t care enough to study a bird guide but don’t mind asking for someone else to identify their birds, I think having a panel of knowledgeable people to sort through all the “claims" would keep the birding in California a lot more credible than ebird.
    
    Jim Lomax
    From No Particular Place
    
    On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Gjon Hazard gjon_hazard@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    At the risk of being branded a heretic (again), I wonder if Bird Records Committees are still relevant in the age of eBird
    
    -Gjon
    San Diego County
    
     
    
     
    
     
  24. -back to top-
  25. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 16, 2018 @ 7:56pm, 4 month(s) ago
    My .02:
    
    I am in favor of all sorts of information. More, not less. Different
    
    formats work for different people. I find the search function of eBird
    
    more helpful than Yahoo groups, but I also find the phone app clunky and
    
    prefer to take written field notes and do my eBird report later. When it
    
    comes to information, as long as accuracy is there, I think variety is
    
    good.
    
    I find that listservs often are overly censorious when dealing with
    
    newbies and newcomers to specific areas. It is possible, in theory, to
    
    correct an error without making the person never, ever want to report a
    
    bird again.
    
    I am, however, extremely frustrated with the eBird reviewer unspoken
    
    requirement that one must have an expensive camera or be a member of the
    
    local ruling cabal to have records of anything even very slightly out of
    
    the ordinary accepted.
    
    Kyri Freeman
    
    Barstow, CA
    
    > Do not eliminate the list-serves and improve the quality of eBirds. I am
    
    > not in favor of eBird reviewers being forced to accept photo records when
    
    > they cannot confirm those photos were even taken in the location in the
    
    > record. If they question the submitter and there is no response that
    
    > record should be eliminated. We should never replace the state record
    
    > committees under any circumstances.
    
    > Leonie Batkin
    
    >
    
    > Sent from my iPhone
    
    >
    
    >> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@... [CALBIRDS]
    
    >> < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >>
    
    >> The question is: Should ebird replace the California Records Committee
    
    >> The answer is firmly NO.
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >> All this other discussion is nice and Iâm glad things are improving. I
    
    >> hope it works out.
    
    >>
    
    >> Jim
    
    >>
    
    >>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Brian Sullivan < heraldpetrel@... >
    
    >>> wrote:
    
    >>>
    
    >>> Hi All,
    
    >>>
    
    >>> As someone who has worked closely with the eBird team since 2005, I can
    
    >>> assure you that we, and everyone at the Lab, greatly value the work
    
    >>> done by regional bird records committees. The stringent review process
    
    >>> employed by records committees is perfect for consideration of very
    
    >>> important records, and eBird policy is to adhere to these finalized
    
    >>> decisions. The bird records committee process is also highly valuable
    
    >>> in situations where the details and evidence aren't exactly a 'slam
    
    >>> dunk', and a more thoughtful and careful committee-based review
    
    >>> decision is necessary. If there are great photos of an easily
    
    >>> identified rarity (e.g., adult Ross's Gull etc.), eBird provisionally
    
    >>> accepts the record pending formal acceptance by the relevant bird
    
    >>> records committee. This allows the information to get out there in a
    
    >>> broader way to the community of people looking to eBird for rare bird
    
    >>> information.. eBird's nearly 3000 global data reviewers work tirelessly
    
    >>> and often thanklessly on a volunteer basis. We greatly appreciate all
    
    >>> their hard work, input, and commitment to the project--without them,
    
    >>> eBird would cease to exist..
    
    >>>
    
    >>> One thing worth pointing out is that the eBird review process is always
    
    >>> evolving, and hopefully becoming more refined over time. It strives to
    
    >>> achieve a high level of accuracy in the data while balancing a number
    
    >>> of other considerations, not least of which being scale and usability.
    
    >>> With more than 10 million records a month passing through eBird, the
    
    >>> time is near for a complete overhaul of the way the review process
    
    >>> works. Look for continued improvements in the next 12-18 months on this
    
    >>> front. For now, you can read about how the review process works on
    
    >>> eBird here:
    
    >>>
    
    >>> http://help.ebird.org/customer/portal/articles/1055676
    
    >>>
    
    >>> It ain't perfect, that's for sure. But we're working to improve it
    
    >>> every day.
    
    >>>
    
    >>> Thanks
    
    >>>
    
    >>> Brian
    
    >>>
    
    >>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Barrett coddler@...
    
    >>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Perhaps you are mixing two objectives Jim.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Long-term accuracy: The eBird review system aims at producing the same
    
    >>>> clean data-base of rare sightings that any RBC strives for.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Put another way, and putting the is it "countable" issue to one side,
    
    >>>> what does the average RBC provide that a well-reviewed eBird does not
    
    >>>> - or could not - especially if each RBC member put the same amount of
    
    >>>> time into reviewing eBird sightings
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Front-end Speed: In the meantime, let's get the information out as
    
    >>>> fast as possible - warts and all. Surely one accurate and fast
    
    >>>> Tropical Parula report is worth a lot of noise that must be
    
    >>>> subsequently cleaned out.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> I suggest that the very same unfiltered front-end that allows the
    
    >>>> noise also encourages everyone to submit their rare bird sightings
    
    >>>> faster and more frequently than most of us ever do to the RBC. Indeed,
    
    >>>> every California RBC report seems to contain notes of sightings for
    
    >>>> which they have not received a single report. I'm willing to bet that
    
    >>>> on eBird the average rare bird gets a lot more data submitted than
    
    >>>> ever gets sent to the RBC, so there is a lot more evidence for the
    
    >>>> reviewers to consider.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> It has been noted that not everyone is yet a member of eBird. OK, so
    
    >>>> until eBird is truly universal, provide an RBC-like portal - just to
    
    >>>> capture their reports.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Another benefit of migrating RBC's to eBird is that eBird provides a
    
    >>>> degree of national consistency, for example, in the treatment of
    
    >>>> introduced birds, information required for inclusion, data base
    
    >>>> management, etc.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> eBird is by no means perfect, so pointing out where it currently does
    
    >>>> not fully replace RBC's is fair game, but surely it should/can be
    
    >>>> adjusted.
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>> Bruce Barrett
    
    >>>> San Jose, CA
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>>
    
    >>>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@...
    
    >>>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>> Considering the huge number of erroneous ebird reports, some even
    
    >>>>> documented with photos, from people either too lazy or donât care
    
    >>>>> enough to study a bird guide but donât mind asking for someone else
    
    >>>>> to identify their birds, I think having a panel of knowledgeable
    
    >>>>> people to sort through all the âclaims" would keep the birding in
    
    >>>>> California a lot more credible than ebird.
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>> Jim Lomax
    
    >>>>> From No Particular Place
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>>
    
    >>>>>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Gjon Hazard gjon_hazard@...
    
    >>>>>> [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    >>>>>>
    
    >>>>>> At the risk of being branded a heretic (again), I wonder if Bird
    
    >>>>>> Records Committees are still relevant in the age of eBird
    
    >>>>>>
    
    >>>>>> -Gjon
    
    >>>>>> San Diego County
    
    >>>>>>
    
    >>
    
    >>
    
    >
    
    --
    
    My dark fantasy and historical fiction novels are available for Kindle on
    
    Amazon. Print copies also available.
  26. -back to top-
  27. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 16, 2018 @ 7:32pm, 4 month(s) ago
    Do not eliminate the list-serves and improve the quality of eBirds.I am not in favor of eBird reviewers being forced to accept photo records when they cannot confirm those photos were even taken in the location in the record.If they question the submitter and there is no response that record should be eliminated.We should never replace the state record committees under any circumstances.
    
    Leonie Batkin
    
    Sent from my iPhone
    
    On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
     The question is: Should ebird replace the California Records Committee The answer is firmly NO.
    
    All this other discussion is nice and I’m glad things are improving. I hope it works out.
    
    Jim
    
    On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Brian Sullivan < heraldpetrel@... > wrote:
    
    Hi All,
    
    As someone who has worked closely with the eBird team since 2005, I can assure you that we, and everyone at the Lab, greatly value the work done by regional bird records committees. The stringent review process employed by records committees is perfect for consideration of very important records, and eBird policy is to adhere to these finalized decisions. The bird records committee process is also highly valuable in situations where the details and evidence aren't exactly a 'slam dunk', and a more thoughtful and careful committee-based review decision is necessary. If there are great photos of an easily identified rarity (e.g., adult Ross's Gull etc.), eBird provisionally accepts the record pending formal acceptance by the relevant bird records committee. This allows the information to get out there in a broader way to the community of people looking to eBird for rare bird information. eBird's nearly 3000 global data reviewers work tirelessly and often thanklessly on a volunteer basis. We greatly appreciate all their hard work, input, and commitment to the project--without them, eBird would cease to exist.
    
    One thing worth pointing out is that the eBird review process is always evolving, and hopefully becoming more refined over time. It strives to achieve a high level of accuracy in the data while balancing a number of other considerations, not least of which being scale and usability. With more than 10 million records a month passing through eBird, the time is near for a complete overhaul of the way the review process works. Look for continued improvements in the next 12-18 months on this front. For now, you can read about how the review process works on eBird here:
    
    http://help.ebird.org/customer/portal/articles/1055676
    
    It ain't perfect, that's for sure. But we're working to improve it every day.
    
    Thanks
    
    Brian
    
    On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Barrett coddler@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    
    
    Perhaps you are mixing two objectives Jim.
    
    Long-term accuracy: The eBird review system aims at producing the same clean data-base of rare sightings that any RBC strives for.
    
    Put another way, and putting the is it "countable" issue to one side, what does the average RBC provide that a well-reviewed eBird does not - or could not - especially if each RBC member put the same amount of time into reviewing eBird sightings
    
    Front-end Speed: In the meantime, let's get the information out as fast as possible - warts and all. Surely one accurate and fast Tropical Parula report is worth a lot of noise that must be subsequently cleaned out.
    
    I suggest that the very same unfiltered front-end that allows the noise also encourages everyone to submit their rare bird sightings faster and more frequently than most of us ever do to the RBC. Indeed, every California RBC report seems to contain notes of sightings for which they have not received a single report. I'm willing to bet that on eBird the average rare bird gets a lot more data submitted than ever gets sent to the RBC, so there is a lot more evidence for the reviewers to consider.
    
    It has been noted that not everyone is yet a member of eBird. OK, so until eBird is truly universal, provide an RBC-like portal - just to capture their reports.
    
    Another benefit of migrating RBC's to eBird is that eBird provides a degree of national consistency, for example, in the treatment of introduced birds, information required for inclusion, data base management, etc.
    
    eBird is by no means perfect, so pointing out where it currently does not fully replace RBC's is fair game, but surely it should/can be adjusted.
    
    Bruce Barrett
    San Jose, CA
    
    On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
     Considering the huge number of erroneous ebird reports, some even documented with photos, from people either too lazy or don’t care enough to study a bird guide but don’t mind asking for someone else to identify their birds, I think having a panel of knowledgeable people to sort through all the “claims" would keep the birding in California a lot more credible than ebird.
    
    Jim Lomax
    From No Particular Place
    
    On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Gjon Hazard gjon_hazard@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    At the risk of being branded a heretic (again), I wonder if Bird Records Committees are still relevant in the age of eBird
    
    -Gjon
    San Diego County
  28. -back to top-
  29. Re: [CALBIRDS] Are Regional/County Listservs Still Relevant? [a bit long] LINK
    DATE: Jan 16, 2018 @ 7:15pm, 4 month(s) ago
    The question is: Should ebird replace the California Records Committee The answer is firmly NO.
    
    All this other discussion is nice and I’m glad things are improving. I hope it works out.
    
    Jim
    
    On Jan 16, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Brian Sullivan < heraldpetrel@... > wrote:
    
    Hi All,
    
    As someone who has worked closely with the eBird team since 2005, I can assure you that we, and everyone at the Lab, greatly value the work done by regional bird records committees. The stringent review process employed by records committees is perfect for consideration of very important records, and eBird policy is to adhere to these finalized decisions. The bird records committee process is also highly valuable in situations where the details and evidence aren't exactly a 'slam dunk', and a more thoughtful and careful committee-based review decision is necessary. If there are great photos of an easily identified rarity (e.g., adult Ross's Gull etc.), eBird provisionally accepts the record pending formal acceptance by the relevant bird records committee. This allows the information to get out there in a broader way to the community of people looking to eBird for rare bird information. eBird's nearly 3000 global data reviewers work tirelessly and often thanklessly on a volunteer basis. We greatly appreciate all their hard work, input, and commitment to the project--without them, eBird would cease to exist.
    
    One thing worth pointing out is that the eBird review process is always evolving, and hopefully becoming more refined over time. It strives to achieve a high level of accuracy in the data while balancing a number of other considerations, not least of which being scale and usability. With more than 10 million records a month passing through eBird, the time is near for a complete overhaul of the way the review process works. Look for continued improvements in the next 12-18 months on this front. For now, you can read about how the review process works on eBird here:
    
    http://help.ebird.org/customer/portal/articles/1055676
    
    It ain't perfect, that's for sure. But we're working to improve it every day.
    
    Thanks
    
    Brian
    
    On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Barrett coddler@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
    
    
    
    Perhaps you are mixing two objectives Jim.
    
    Long-term accuracy: The eBird review system aims at producing the same clean data-base of rare sightings that any RBC strives for.
    
    Put another way, and putting the is it "countable" issue to one side, what does the average RBC provide that a well-reviewed eBird does not - or could not - especially if each RBC member put the same amount of time into reviewing eBird sightings
    
    Front-end Speed: In the meantime, let's get the information out as fast as possible - warts and all. Surely one accurate and fast Tropical Parula report is worth a lot of noise that must be subsequently cleaned out.
    
    I suggest that the very same unfiltered front-end that allows the noise also encourages everyone to submit their rare bird sightings faster and more frequently than most of us ever do to the RBC. Indeed, every California RBC report seems to contain notes of sightings for which they have not received a single report. I'm willing to bet that on eBird the average rare bird gets a lot more data submitted than ever gets sent to the RBC, so there is a lot more evidence for the reviewers to consider.
    
    It has been noted that not everyone is yet a member of eBird. OK, so until eBird is truly universal, provide an RBC-like portal - just to capture their reports.
    
    Another benefit of migrating RBC's to eBird is that eBird provides a degree of national consistency, for example, in the treatment of introduced birds, information required for inclusion, data base management, etc.
    
    eBird is by no means perfect, so pointing out where it currently does not fully replace RBC's is fair game, but surely it should/can be adjusted.
    
    Bruce Barrett
    San Jose, CA
    
    On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Jim Lomax sdrib@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
     Considering the huge number of erroneous ebird reports, some even documented with photos, from people either too lazy or don’t care enough to study a bird guide but don’t mind asking for someone else to identify their birds, I think having a panel of knowledgeable people to sort through all the “claims" would keep the birding in California a lot more credible than ebird.
    
    Jim Lomax
    From No Particular Place
    
    On Jan 16, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Gjon Hazard gjon_hazard@... [CALBIRDS] < CALBIRDS-noreply@yahoogroups. com > wrote:
    
    At the risk of being branded a heretic (again), I wonder if Bird Records Committees are still relevant in the age of eBird
    
    -Gjon
    San Diego County
  30. -back to top-


-revision history-
v1.30 - 01/05/16 - Revamped cloud logic, optimized database queries, linked to eBird rarities.
v1.23 - 12/08/11 - Added direct link to CBRC records.
v1.22 - 12/03/11 - Corrected GMT offsets on dates. Added last 5 posts at top.
v1.21 - 11/24/11 - Added direct link to range map for NA birds.
v1.2  - 11/23/11 - Greatly improved graphing technology - separates month vs. year by posts. Added species auto-complete functionality.
v1.14 - 11/22/11 - Added cloud bubble for common thread topics.
v1.13 - 11/22/11 - Added integrated photos where available.
v1.12 - 11/22/11 - Added multiple input boxes for additional refinement, negative search criteria (eg. -keyword).
v1.11 - 11/22/11 - Added banding code, species look-up. Also direct link to recent eBird observations.
 v1.1 - 11/22/11 - Added 'date' functionality. Shows top 'month/year' combinations for a query. Restrict results to that 'month/year'.
 v1.0 - 11/21/11 - Initial version coded. Currently archiving 'lacobirds' and 'calbirds'.