[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by PTO on 04:46:36 03/07/07
In Reply to: eBird data posted by Robin Diaz
I don't generally favor tight controls but this Cornell thing is interesting. How does a reader value a "sighting" when it is posted. We could just produce a new "spam". When I used to trek the Fakahatchee I would often find cattleya orchids tied to trees. Sort of "Botanical jokes". The jokster waits a year or so, the string rots away, the orchid attaches to the pond apple then he/she reports "exciting new" find. Imagine a flurry of "marginally" accurate sightings being posted. Who and how to decide relaibility?
If TAS juries the entries from our area it increases credibility rating. But that itself just imposes a bias of sorts. We could say no picture no post but many Tasers are not photographers and is that really relevant. If you see the birds that is what is important since ten minutes later the bird could be 800 yards down the road.
For my part, this board is doing fine. I draw locations and species from it regularly. Then I go there and take pictures. Once in a while I post the pictures (under Paul-the-other) and people can go, or look, or do nothing as they see fit. Perhaps, TAS does what it is doing now and designates an editorial synopsis goes to Cornell. That gives it both originality and (from South Florida perspective) crdibility.
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]