The following addresses Bill's experience with querying data in eBird. WHAN: "For example, I explored its data for Franklin County, Ohio, from the year 1900 to the present. I got a list, with abundance histograms, for 278 species (possible in the county apparently, as there are no records for most of them)" Sorry, I do not follow you. What do you mean by "there are no records for most of them"? A species (or taxa) is listed ONLY if there is a vetted record within the database. WHAN: and 19 "other taxa," which included stuff like "warbler sp." and "sparrow sp.", but no taxa like warbler hybrids or hypotheticals, . If there is no entry for a given taxa, none within the birding community have chosen to enter it. The only warbler hybrids thus far reported to eBird for the state of Ohio involve Blue- winged and Golden-winged Warblers. One of those, a May 08 sighting by Gene Stauffer is shown for Franklin County. As to the nature of the other taxa, that is the subject of a separate post. Hypotheticals? Within a checklist this typically refers to species for which there are no specimens or photographs, merely sight records. That works well within the purview of records committees, but how does it work for eBird, the Listserv, or The Ohio Cardinal. If I had to venture a guess, I would say ... Of those observations reported to eBird ... 99.9% are sight records. Of observations reported to this Listserv ... 99% are sight records. Of observations printed within journals ... 98% are sight records. Virtually everything is a hypothetical in that regard. WHAN: or the reports that were excluded. A valid point. One always likes to see the whole data set without the bias of another editor. I feel the same way. No doubt, you could provide an explanation for the basis of culling observations for The Ohio Cardinal while you were editor. The result would have a been a tiny fraction of the data sent to you. No doubt you have the raw files (photo-copied? archived? backed up electronically?) and can readily supply these to those that request them. For example, to BSBO so they may identify additional unpublished records for the Winter Bird Atlas ... or pinpoint the location to the necessary quadrangle of those that were printed but where the specific location was omitted owing to space constraints. I have spent the better part of the past 12 months reviewing much of the printed Ohio literature for the Ohio Winter Bird Atlas, and there is a surprising amount that is beyond our reach by virtue of the printed format. Were it pinpointed in eBird it would have been a simple matter to make use of the data. But I digress. To answer your question as to excluded records, in eBird, it took me 3 minutes just now to pull up the 530 Franklin County records of which I expressly reviewed and physically designated as INVALID*. Four are pending. And yes, I can supply a word doc. if you wish to sift through exotics, duplicate submissions, andtranscription errors, that make up the bulk of the file. [*the default condition of all flagged items is INVALID.] WHAN: "Clicking around gives a local map showing sites at which included species were reported, when, and by whom. Not all the locations were accurate." This is indeed true. And something Ken Ostermiller and I have been addressing. Given the pace of checklist entry (2200 or so in the last 7 weeks for example), tackling erroneous placement of data is quite the challenge. More on our work in a separate post. As I posted this time last year, I encourage the birding community to police eBird by bringing these errors to my attention. BTW, it is a very simple matter for anyone, having identified the misplacement of their checklist, to relocate it to the correct locale. Gross misplacement of a checklist, or attaching a broad location (state and county*) are grounds for invalidation. *I presently exempt county big days with appropriate effort information. WHAN: A few, very few, of these records go back well before the days of eBird. Very glad you pointed this out. It goes to the crux of my "beating the drums"for eBird these past 3 years. Historical data ... where are they? Again, the participation of the birding community, especially those with the knowledge of where specific records are located, will be invaluable in fleshing out local and state avifaunas. While we're waiting, I will continue to enter historical records under the banner OHIO-ARCHIVIST -VWF ... which includes one of the earliest records in eBird ... the only entry for Passenger Pigeon. On the other hand, Calliope Hummingbird (and dozens of other state records) will not find a home in eBird without the aid of those with knowledge of the appropriate geographical placement (nearest cross-roads works if privacy is an issue) in choosing to enter that observation. Much of that information IS NOT available in the printed ornithological record where space constraints force editors to abbreviate the record. I know I'm forced to consolidate many a record in North American Birds, as distasteful as I find doing so. WHAN: I knew most of the contributors, and trusted their identifications, but if a lot of beginners start contributing, few mistaken reports of commoner species such as those Allen Chartier describes. They are difficult to vet. Presumably these same ID problems plague the Christmas Bird Count yet this effort seems to have some staying power. I'll touch on this in a post on vetting. Worse yet are transcription errors ... which easily take up most of my time when vetting eBird. WHAN: I'm putting together a checklist for the county, for which I have thus far 329 species, a lot more than eBird, And will remain the case so long as birders choose not to enter historical data. It is possible to reconstruct (back to 1900) a checklist, of all species, based on frequency. One that with an appropriate sample size (that participation issue once again), will give a reasonable hypothesis as to the occurrence of those species across the seasons. WHAN: and 27 "other taxa," but not including vague and unsatisfactory categories like "shorebird sp." or "blackbird sp." Another excellent point. I keep to a few rules for the appearance of the checklists generated by eBird (yes this is my decision not Cornell). I decline to validate exotics. eBirders are free to populate their personal lists with Chukars and Lady Amherst's Pheasant, but I draw the line at the public checklist. If someone in the future wishes to reverse that policy, it is only a matter of a few mouse clicks to do so. For 2 years I adhered to the principle that a taxa had to be a discrete entity representing at a maximum the genus. So Greater/Lesser yellowlegs, peeps sp., were acceptable but shorebird sp. was not. However, suggestions come in all the time from end users and despite some misgivings over some of the choices, I have chosen to respect their submission at least for a trial period to see whether gull sp., shorebird sp., etc. is something eBird users wish to see. These extraneous taxa have only been implemented since spring 2009 and I still consider them experimental. WHAN: It doesn't include extinct and extirpated species. The county has two records of varied thrush, but they do not appear in these data; ditto for dozens of other records of unusual species. Why offer a search that starts at the year 1900 when there are no eBird data for all species, or for a period no longer than a few years? Ummmmm... eBird is a tool by which a database can be created and, to a limited extent, analyzed. How the Ohio birding community chooses to wield that tool, and to the extent we take responsibility for our observations, will dictate the quality and quantity of the content. One is free to enter any of these historical records. I would be pleased were yourself or the say the Avid Birders took on the task of entering historical published data for Franklin County. I only ask that any one wishing to do so contact me first so we don't have overlapping efforts across the state. WHAN: What's missing from eBird is 200 years of data. No doubt these can be supplied. I doubt it. I just flipped through Wheaton (1882) and found few specific records. Apart from a few specimen records, I am aware of exceedingly few published records prior to 1900 that reference a specific date and location. Given its role as a tool for conservation, I am more concerned about the past 30 years or so of data in eBird. WHAN: Many of them will come from posts on mailing lists that later appear in printed publications. I edited the Ohio Cardinal, the state ornithological journal, for ten years, and going through such data and those of regional and national counterpart publications (like N. Am. Birds, etc.), will presumably always be how bird records are compiled. they are not lost in cyberspace. Are Listserv observations lost in cyberspace? Are CBC data, and that of a variety of other databases? How is eBird different in that respect? I agree, eBird does not serve as a compilation but it can serve compiler's. WHAN: And if eBird decides to include this history, this is where they will find it. The listserv .. well yes ... which is why I have appealed to those taking the time to write up the lists for that venue to consider saving somebody else (namely me) from having to so. For example, the same White-winged Crossbill data set that proved so illuminating was a consequence of my entering 2 dozen checklists (half of the data) off the listserv. Similarly, with the Sandhill Crane flight in Dec ... a good many were entered into eBird, subsequent to my appeal to do so, including 1500 birds not listed within Gabe Leidy's summation. But of his 6600 drawn from many other sources, the bulk are not within eBird ... more work for me to track those down , determine whether sufficient information is available to enter the data, and then do it ... all because visualizing such a flight, and the paths the birds took, is far more informative than a generic slate of disparate reports. Now as to the printed ornithological record. Unfortunately no ... this will prove a very limited resource. What % of the 1000's of records submitted on report forms finds its way into print? When I was editor of The Ohio Cardinal, the 55-65 paper reports, plus the listserv could represent 14-18 thousand observations for a given season. I would distilled this down to a spreadsheet of roughly 900 (summer) to 2400 (fall) sightings. From this about half found their way into print. In other words, 80% of the ornithological record does not see the light of day.* And of course, to Dave Slager's point, the effort behind those observations is rarely made known. * A wonderful exception are local efforts at summary such as The Bobolink, The Cleveland Bird Calendar, and Ned Keller's online database for the Cincy area ... here a much higher percentage is made available.. WHAN: EBird has a different and important purpose, the long-term study of bird populations enabled by large databases of estimated numbers and locations and seasons of every species. Exactly so. WHAN: Finally, I advise against posting one's eBird data directly to mailing lists in unedited form ... a mailing list is a poor database, but has other functions. I agree. And have never held a different position from the time of the inception of Ohio-Birds. WHAN: ... I have no problem that the eBird folks are playing the drums to get participants, even if it is made to seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread for almost every kind of data need. I think I once said it was the greatest tool since the Peterson Field Guide for the bird conservation ... and still stand by that. eBird allows the common birder to tie their observations, that presently DO NOT find their way into any other venue, to specific geographic locations. For those who tout, rightfully, the conservations efforts of environmental organizations through land acquisition, ask yourselves this ... How does one value that land from the standpoint of biodiversity? ... you gather data ... you create lists of fauna and flora. It is the very foundation of the conservation of biodiversity. Every county park system, every land trust, every Audubon Society, every member of the Ohio Bird Conservation Initiative, etc. could make use of eBird. Still unsure ... take a look at the Ohio Breeding Bird Atlas ... do you participate online? Then you are a part of eBird. So who are the eBird folks. They are several hundred birders, dozens of whom also participate on the listserv. They are Audubon Society groups such as Black River Audubon diligently canvasing their local Audubon Ohio Important Bird Areas within Lorain County. They are banding groups, they are members of the Ohio birding community (and increasingly Magee bounds tourists) ... collectively bringing more than 200,000 records annually ... 2200+ checklists at the half way mark of this winter season. BTW, that effort ranks Ohio consistently about 13th among the states. WHAN: One other thing. Some people think list postings are just for reporting bird sightings, but that is far from the case. Look at Rob Thorn's informative post from last night and imagine how eBird would have told you that. Indeed. There is much, much more to the listserv. Thanks Bill for bringing up these important points. cheers Vic Fazio Shaker Heights, OH State Reviewer, eBird, Ohio & Oklahoma Regional Editor, North American Birds, OH-PA-WV [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________________________ Ohio-birds mailing list, a service of the Ohio Ornithological Society. Our thanks to Miami University for hosting this mailing list. Additional discussions can be found in our forums, at www.ohiobirds.org/forum/. You can join or leave the list, or change your options, at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OHIO-BIRDS Send questions or comments about the list to: [log in to unmask]