Whatbird.com

I think we should use the- Comments on specific birds- section to post our pictures of the birds.  or, have a section where we can do that.  It would be very helpful to us newbies to id birds.  It would be a great learning tool. Birds take on so many looks, male, female, juv, molting, winter, summer, fluffed up, wet.  I actually had to have Bird Brain id an American Gold finch today, it was molting and I have never even seen a pic of a molting GF.  What do you experts think? It may stop us newbies from annoying you with ids that we should already know.

---

Life List: 68. Photo list: 60.

I'm all for more easy-to-find pictures of specific birds.  More pictures makes it easier, even when one has several field guides. 

You all have seen the main WhatBird site, right?  (http://www.whatbird.com)

Just type the species in question into the Search box.  Most species pages have an illustration along with several photos to look through.

Seen that.  But more pictures are helpful, particularly for juveniles, variants, etc., as the original post noted.  As many have noted, atttempting to ID a bird based on a single photo is difficult, and many birds on the main site have zero or one photo.  Right now, the species-specific threads are rarely used and are therefore completely useless.  Why not add some value to those threads?  Frankly, other than the bird identification section, hardly anything on this site gets many posts.  Seems to me that making other parts of the site active would be a good thing. 

 But that's just one guy's opinion. 

i think thats a great idea.  have a few textbook photos of males, female, juvs, and common variants on the thread for each species would be nice.  great suggestion.

It's a good idea, I don't mean to suggest otherwise (I can't deny there isn't much point to the species threads right now).

I'm just making sure that everyone has seen all of the features on the main site.  Most of the more common species have additional photos for females and juveniles.  There's also a Variations tab at the top of some of the species, which has illustrations for some of the variants.

The main site also has an open call for photos, and recently, quite a few photos were added to the collection.  For those species that have zero or one photo, I'm sure a contribution would be appreciated.

I think the biggest impediment to your idea is that it would have to be policed (What if someone posts a photo of the wrong species?), and we've all seen how (in)active the admins are in doing this.  Sure, if it's pointed out that the photo is wrong, the original poster would probably remove it, but would this be enough in all cases?  Plus, you'd have all the clutter that you normally have in the ID forum ("It's a Sharp-Shinned," "No, it's a Cooper's", "Sharpie!", "Coop's!", "I agree with Sharpie, because of a, b, and c,",  "You all are nuts, it's obviously a Cooper's!", ...)

Again, I don't mean to be a stick in the mud, I just want to think it through to be sure that the idea will work in practice. 

lyceel, I wish you weren't, but you are right.  My idea will not work, for the reasons you stated.  I don't think you are a stick in the mud, I think you thought it out better than I did. thanks

 btw, I used to have screen name- Danny Collins- I started this thread. I have not been able to get on with that name so now I am SPYBIRD. 

i may be a little too optimistic.  just lets everyone agree that before a bird photo gets posted in the "comments about spec birds" section, it is confirmed in the ID section.  the photos in the main section of the site for specific species are good, but in some cases they are not enough.  and most of them do not have comprehensive examples of juvs, females, basic, alternate plumages, etc.  its not like anything has to be set in stone, if someone posts a pic of a bird thats not correct/contraversial, state in the thread that its wrong and have the moderator remove it, or the person that posted it.  if its not removed, its not the end of the world, this is not a museum setting, its only for aid in referencing geo. variation or clinal plumage changes.  just be clear that its not intended for ID debates and every photo posted has to be CONFIRMED IN THE ID SECTION of the forum.  i still think its a great idea, and with some dicipline, it can be a wonderful resource for all who use the site.  there are instructions posted for every section of the forum that guide users in how to use that section, they are sometimes ignored or not noticed, but i think that the members do a great job of policing it and issues are always easily resolved.

I'm all for the freedom and collaboration that the Internet offers.  I really am!  So far, though, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that this forum even has a moderator, much less one that is willing to police the pages in question.  Mitch will occasionally pop into a discussion (especially in the iBird area), but it seems to me that he's a busy guy and just doesn't have time for something like this.  Without that, there will undoubtedly be erroneous posts, and they will stay there forever, no matter how many people say they're wrong.  The best we can hope for is for the original poster to delete the content of their post (the post itself will remain).

I recently posted a request for an active moderator in the Site Suggestions area, because I think it's the main feature these forums are lacking.  Hiring a moderator, or finding a willing volunteer, is not a trivial request, though, so I'm not optimistic that it will ever happen.  If we had an active moderator, this idea would work.  Without one, it won't.  That's my opinion, anyway.

I wrote something in the site suggestion forum and then read this.  I disagree about the police (moderator) being needed.  99 out of 100 of us don't want to post an incorrect bird.  I think you will find that the knowledgeable folks will quickly point out bad pictures and explain why.  I tend to learn more when a mistake is made due to the ensuing comments and observations.  Many times, in the ID forum, people just state what a bird is and not provide the identification marks that make the ID.  An area I am frustrated with is sparrows.  I would love to see 15 pictures of a single species.  There can be an informal rule that the bird is ID'd by the ID forum first.  Most of the time the rule will be followed.  We had a crow vs raven thread that was very well done. 

There is a website I use to get examples.... http://vireo.acnatsci.org/index.html 

I have the feeling that this application (WhatBird) is becoming secondary to other pursuits.  I submitted a picture for use by this site on a bird that they have no pictures of and have not gotten a response (I had another picture published a few months ago).  The spam postings and email notification problems are examples of inattention.   

---

Latest Birds: Black-throated Green Warbler, Pine Warbler, Eastern Kingbird, Rufous-backed Robin, Crissal Thrasher

Matt:

I think you will find that the knowledgeable folks will quickly point out bad pictures and explain why.

Nobody is arguing that point.  I have no doubt that the vast majority of the posts will be correct and usable.  The problem is that when there is an incorrect post, it will stay there forever because we have no moderator to remove it.  The casual reader will see the incorrect picture and think it's correct at first, then have to keep reading to find that it's incorrect (or best case, the original poster will delete the content, and you'll have empty posts cluttering up the forum).

The suggestion is about setting up a reference area for bird species.  In order for the reference to be useful and concise, it has to be free of misinformation and clutter.  All I'm saying is that people tend to make mistakes occasionally, and they will make mistakes in posting to the species pages, and there's no way to fix them once they happen.  Thus, the reference will not be concise and its usefulness will be hampered.

 

Matt:

I have the feeling that this application (WhatBird) is becoming secondary to other pursuits.  I submitted a picture for use by this site on a bird that they have no pictures of and have not gotten a response (I had another picture published a few months ago).  The spam postings and email notification problems are examples of inattention. 

Exactly my point.  The forums were set up to run themselves as best as they can, and then left alone.  It's pretty clear that Mitch is focusing his time with iBird (and you can't blame him, because that's no doubt how he's paying the bills).  He's probably got half a dozen other things going on as well.  There's nobody to clean up any messes that happen.

As for the main site photos, I'm beginning to believe that submissions are only taken from pro photographers.  The reason seems to be that although Mitch can't pay the photographers for their pictures, he can link to their gallery to give them a bit of extra exposure.  Not sure how well it works, but I found John Schwarz's (SnowyOwl's) gallery this way (it's a great site to visit, by the way).

 

I have an idea!!!   how about only the experts post the pics.  I know it is alot to ask of you guys, but I bet it would save ya'll from having to id molting gold finches for folks like me.  very few of the newbies will ever read this post/topic,  so they won't post pics.  It would be the most useful tool on the net, I bet.  

DC

SPYBIRD:

I have an idea!!!   how about only the experts post the pics.  I know it is alot to ask of you guys, but I bet it would save ya'll from having to id molting gold finches for folks like me.  very few of the newbies will ever read this post/topic,  so they won't post pics.  It would be the most useful tool on the net, I bet.  

Same problem.  You need a moderator to grant special access to certain users (the ones that have proven themselves as experts).  He/she would need to figure out who the real experts are and then invite them to post their photos in the proper places.  If you just allow everyone to post, it will work just as well as above.  They'll be OK for a while, but every so often, a well-intentioned, but naive user will post a question there when they meant to post to the ID forum, or someone with more questionable intentions will ignore the guidelines and post an incorrect photo.  To deal with this, you once again need a moderator to clean things up every so often.

It all comes back to the need for an active moderator.

I hate to keep shooting down these great ideas, but I just don't think they're sustainable over the long term without someone keeping an eye on them.  I do work in a computer lab with several college students.  We try to keep things as free as possible, but you simply have to have some level of administration if you want the system to keep functioning for any length of time.

you are right lyceel.  I wish you weren't, but you are.  Bottom line is- this sight needs a moderator.  My idea is good,but won't work here. As far as I can tell, this is the best web site to id birds, but I bet we all can see ways to make it better. 

 OK, so we need a moderator... any volunteers?  anybody?  

Why the concern about erroneous posts?  If they are wrong, subsequent posts will make that clear and it will be a learning experience for everyone.  If there are truly bizarre posts, they can be removed by a moderator, assuming there is one.  But a few close-but-not-quite photos are probably good rather than bad, particularly if it highlights a common error. 

And, again, what's there now is totally useless, so there's no harm in giving something new a try.