eBird Commentary

 ... are quite common, and that points out one of the insidious problems with the eBird process of review of reports. First, a digression. The single most widespread problem with eBird is that eBirders are not required to understand how eBird works, what different sorts of entries mean, and what they include... or exclude, or, even, be able to reliably identify individual birds by sight and/or sound. Literally, anyone can report data to eBird and, so long as entries do not trip relevant filters, eBirders can report whatever they believe or, worse, whatever they want. There is probably no more nearly invisibly pernicious effect on aspects of eBird caused by the ignorant eBirder than that engendered by eBird subspecies entries. eBird subspecies entries -- that is, those subspecies or groups of similar subspecies for which eBird provides individual entry options -- are impenetrable for an apparently sizable number of eBirders. So long as the subspecies entry selected by the eBirder is...

Since it was included as an example of eBird filters in eBird's Help Center , I am starting with a critique of this eBird region's filter. I happen to have experience submitting data to eBird in the county/region, so am personally aware of some of this filter's inadequacies, and I will begin very high up in the taxonomy with Cackling Goose. CAVEAT: I have no idea if what is presented in the aforementioned Help Center article reflects the current Lubbock County filter, because I have no idea whether or when that filter has been altered since eBird captured a snippet of the filter to use in that explanatory page. However, that ignorance does not affect my arguments below about filters and filter limits. Cackling Goose is an eBird problem child for two reasons, the first being that many eBirders are unaware of the potential for the species to occur nearly anywhere in the United States, and, second, even of those who are aware of the above, many have poor understanding of how t...

... there was word of mouth and, for some, publication options. For most, bird-occurrence data were unimportant and, particularly, unknown and unlooked for. With the advent of the widespread availability of telephones in houses, phone trees became established in certain cities to spread word of rare birds. Audubon societies and bird clubs spread and became sources of information on bird occurrence. Then the Internet came into being and was gradually co-opted for distributing information on the occurrence even of not-so-rare species. Then the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology said, "Let there be eBird," and it was... not so much good as better than anything previous. Excellent planning on the front end about some aspects of what eBird would do and how it would do it made for a reasonable stab at its first steps. The powers that be sussed that some sort of filter of incoming data would be required, but the thinking on that topic, in my estimation, was sub-par, even very poor. e...