 |
Hi Alastair,
Sorry to hear you resigned as an admin. You did great work for the group. When your web hosts talk about "enterprise" rates, what sort of figures are they talking about?
Posted 8 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It wasn't so much the cost as that fact that they were demanding 10 times what I was paying before and had locked me out of my site. The existing providers were rubbish, really.
I suppose I could find a better quality host for under $200 a year. It's more a question of if it would really be worthwhile. As far as I can see, the quality of the group is still going downhill. There doesn't seem to be much point indexing the worlds largest collection of American backyard birds.
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Once again, Alastair exhibits his subtle bias towards anything that upsets his equilibrium...now it's American backyard birds...a pity....
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Well, I disagree with Alastair over his last but one sentence, but don't forget that all the fantastic contribution that Alastair gave to this pool while he was an admin. I know you didn't see eye to eye with him, Rick, but the fact is that Alastair's contribution to this group was enormous and I know I'm not alone in being sorry that he's stepped down.
Even without his ongoing support, the work he did enabled us to make a lot of improvements in the pool, and he did more than anyone over a period of several months to tag photos and improve the pool. For me, big thanks to Alastair for his past efforts, and to all the other admins and other contributors (including you, Rick) who've made this group what it is.
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The index made it quick and easy to tag un-tagged photos and to invite new birds to the pool. Without the idex these two huge tasks are tedious and time consuming.
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Once again, Alastair exhibits his subtle bias towards anything that upsets his equilibrium
What is the point of making a purely-personally-insulting statement such as this? Such behaviour is rude, silly, childish and objectionable (and that's an objective description - not a baseless insulting one). I have no problem with discussions, disagreements, arguments or even full-on rows - if they stick to the subject at hand. But insulting people for the sake of it is just way off the mark and requires an apology.
Originally posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Buckeye. edited this topic 7 months ago.
|
 |
Sorry to interupt your guys argument, but can someone tell me how to get some photos into your pool ? I'm a bit new to all this.
Thank you in advance.
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thanks Brian. From your photo page you can select the "Send to group" icon just above the photo. Alternatively you can go to Organize, select the 'Groups' tab and go from there.
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thank you Dave!
Originally posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Brian in Alaska edited this topic 7 months ago.
|
|
Brian, the other thing you need to do is read the group rules before posting.
Quote: "This is not just another group for people to post random photos of birds, but it is an attempt to build an online Identification Guide of the birds of the world. The features of the bird must be clearly visible in your photo and the bird must be positively identified and tagged with its scientific (Latin) name."
Generally untagged head shots of captive birds add little to the Field Guide.
Originally posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
marj k (a group admin) edited this topic 7 months ago.
|
|
Ok, thanks.
Posted 7 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I've updated the pool analysis here: spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pcgIG5VU2zUnMWycczEccBQ
Keys stats are
Species with photos 4673
Photos with valid species 59594
Photos without valid species 2124
Some time around January, we had the "bad list" down to single figures. It is now over 2000.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I worked on it for a couple of hours a day through December and January - but haven't had the time since semester started to even keep up with the new 'bad' additions.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Excellent - thanks Alastair! The bad list will help us to get the pool in order again. Does everyone have access to this, or just Google account holders? Have cleared up the two of mine that I'd mis-tagged and will aim to start looking at the others when I get a chance, if no-one beats me to it (hopefully they will!). I'll also check the illustrated list against the hyperlink index to find any missing species in due course.
Will this update automatically like the previous version, or will you be able to/happy to update it periodically?
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Dave,
The spreadsheet is visible to everyone. I've looked at how to automate the process but I've hit a few problems with updating/republishing.
I've been thinking for a while what a better "mash-up" of the pool would be - side-by-side species comparisons, photo ratings etc. It's really just about finding time and inspiration.
In the meantime, I'll try to keep the spreadsheet up to date manually and will post the link here.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Great! Yes, time is always the real issue. I still keep hoping to pursue the idea from a while back which I exampled here, but it would be a very slow process.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I haven't had a chance to go through Alastair's bad list here - if anyone else has a chance that would be great! I know Carol's been doing some stirling work recently tidying the pool up but I'm not sure if anyone's looked at these ones. I'm hoping Alastair will re-run this from time to time, but there's not much point if we don't do anything about it when he does! Is there anyone who's got time to have sort through some of these?
If you've got time to start but not do it all, might be worth flagging how far you've got (or plan to get) so someone else doesn't duplicate.
Apologies if someone has been through it already - I just checked a few random ones which didn't look like they'd been resolved (I've resolved the ones I checked).
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It might be an idea to work from the 'bad' list rather than checking new postings immediately they are added to the pool. Adding to the group can be done as a batch - and individual tags then corrected.
It is an irritation to the poster, an a waste of the admin's time to be getting messages about tags as you are working on them.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Hey,
Marj k ... I am sorry about that. Bit of a newb and I think it was those Aussie birds that I put a comment on that you are talking about. I am working on new postings because that is how I got started helping ... I usually check the pool daily and as a learning thing, usually search the pool for the species I don't know, so helping with problems turned out to be the next logical step and seemed to be useful (in most cases).
If someone wants to let me know how to work on the bad list and communicate back what I HAVE checked on, I will be glad to do that and let things 'mature' a day or two on the pool if that works better for you guys who have slogged at this forever!
Carol
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Good point, I suppose things that are brand new in the pool might still be being worked on by the poster, although personally I normally tag first. That should only apply to photos that are very recently added though.
Carol (and anyone who wants to help), the URLs in the right hand column of the bad list should take you to photos that haven't been tagged with a Clements scientific name (unless it's been fixed already), so it's just a case of dealing with each of these as you have been with the others. As far as communicating what you're working on/have done is concerned, I guess the easiest way is to post here which photo (user + title) you've got up to so that anyone else having a go can start off where you finished. Might be worth saying you're starting if/when you do so anyone else who wants to work on it at the same time (perhaps I'm being optimistic here...) can work up from the bottom or something.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Well I had a go at the first nine to see what they were like and see if I could be helpful with it.
I was able to resolve three of them, and three had already been resolved as far as I could tell, and three of them I could not resolve. These older ones are going to be slow going when many of the issues are basic lack of identification.
At this point, should one turn around and put those 3 unresolved into the 'resolve or remove' thread?
How is Alistair to know that the others have been resolved? Just by checking here? If so, it would be better for communication if there were some way to number the bad list .. is this no. for the first shrike below its unique identifier? 29934598 Just saying the first 9 have been done is not a method that is going to carry one very far into this process.
Here are the three that I could not resolve so you can tell me what you think would be 'efficient' though I am not sure it is efficient to transfer discussions from here to remove or resolve, but that may be the best way to run the status?
I don't think good minds have been able to resolve the ID
www.flickr.com/photos/29934598@N00/388191883/
Two Unidentified Brazilian hummers
www.flickr.com/photos/23580682@N03/2249745329/
www.flickr.com/photos/23580682@N03/2249745329/
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I think this thread is for general discussion of the index. The images that need to be resolved should be posted in the Resolve or Remove thread as we have been doing - not here.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I have resolved or posted to Resolve or Remove all the birds from the top through this one:
Piliated Woodpecker (f) Vestal NY 2/25/08 www.flickr.com/photos/21838829
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I have little (nothing) of value to add to this discussion but I just wanted to say that you all are awesome. The field guide and Bird ID helpline are two of my favorite parts of flickr. I know a lot of work goes into this and want to thank you all! I'm a novice birdwatcher and over the last year this pool contributed a great deal to my favorite new hobby:)
Originally posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Alexander Yates edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
Latest analysis is here:
spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pcgIG5VU2zUl1QXEUTAS7dg
Bad list now 2129
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Ok ... expressing some frustration here because several birds I had checked off are still on the list.. An example:
www.flickr.com/photos/61651969@N00/2288315163/?editedcomm...
Carduelis cabaret. It is one of several still on the bad list that I had down as checked off and done. It is however still on the list I now know because C cabaret is not yet in the pool index. I did not put a newbird tag on it the first time through though because when I searched the actiual pool, several others with that tag came up and it came up fine on an avibase search, with no indication in the entry that there was a problem re Clemenst 6 vs 5 that I could see. (You had to go to C flammeus to see that). The bottom line is that anyone working on thse bad list who wants to avoid this type of problem will actually have to search the current pool index,, which is tedious as you have to either use your search page function or scroll.
Another example: Milvus aegypticus/Milvus migrans
www.flickr.com/photos/75368563@N00/2234191465/
The other niggler is the use of Clements 5 rather than six. I was not around for the discussions and the decision and I am not an ornithologist, but I can say that It is not easy to search avibase for Clements 5 .. and in the examples above, no indication that in Clements 5 it is still flammeus, only that some authors still consider it flammeus. Not even that type of note for M aegypticus. My current resolution to this problemwas to add C flammeus and M milvus as tags, but that necessitates leaving a comment note for the contributor explaining the discrepancy, etc etc. and again I would not even be aware it was not resolved without an actual index search.
Any hints on how to make this more workable?
The other frustration is of course, any that I have tagged newbird are still showing up on the bad list. No solution to that, other than for me to actually remember what I have already checked and just not go back there again and that of course won't work if another person takes up the task alongside.
These types of problems, though, would seem to make this a tedious process, indeed!
A big whine, for a newb, eh?
Edited to add: for now, of course, I am going to search the actual pool index.
Originally posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
dermoidhome (a group admin) edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
This is not a whine, I promise. I just need to know.
Why is this still on the bad list?
www.flickr.com/photos/27431055@N00/2289718893/
Have checked and dealt by some means with all on new bad list from top through
Carcará, Crested Caracara (Polyborus Plancus) www.flickr.com/photos/13099645
Those few took 90 minutes just for the record.
Originally posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
dermoidhome (a group admin) edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
Put "Megaceryle torquata" into avibase and click through and you get:
Clements 5th ed. (updated 2005):
Ringed Kingfisher (Ceryle torquatus)
Our use of Clements 5th predates the publication of 6th. There has been discussion of upgrading (or even switching to Howard & Moore) but it all boils down to too much work.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I understand the too much work part! What I didn't understand about the kingfisher on the bad list is that I though it was also tagged Ceryle torquatus, but now I see that the tag is wrong and it was tagged C torquata.
The thing I wonder about is how the contributors are going to take it when we are putting tags on (which will be happening more and more frequently as it gets longer in the tooth), based on older names. It seems as though sooner or later the Group will be forced to either change or add the Clement's 6 names to the index as contributors references are updated? Otherwise the 'bad list' is destined to grow and grow?
Thanks.
Originally posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
dermoidhome (a group admin) edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
I think you're finding the same frustrations that a lot of us found when we started using Avibase! It's not immediately clear how it works and what means what. Having said that, it's by far the most useful online resource there is (as far as I know) for this sort of thing.
I'll use the Redpoll example of how I use Avibase to check things. If you enter "Carduelis cabaret" in the search box in Avibase you get this page. Underneath the heading, "Alternative names recognized by other taxonomic authorities:" there is nothing there. If this was a recognised species for any of the lists held by Avibase then they would be listed there. In particular, as "Clements 5th ed. (updated 2005)" isn't listed there, we can deduce that it's not a species recognised by Clements 5th edition (2005 update). Over to the right it says, "This taxon is considered a subspecies of Carduelis flammea (sensu lato) by some authors" and following the link takes you to this page for Common Redpoll. Here Clements 5th (2005) is listed, and the details below it are "Common Redpoll (Carduelis flammea)" - so this is the name it should be tagged with. On the right hand side you'll see it says "Carduelis flammea has been split into 3 species" (inlcuding Carduelis cabaret). That doesn't mean Clements has split it, just that some authorities have split it. Any existing "Carduelis cabaret" tag won't do any harm, but you won't find it searching the index as Clements has it as a race of Carduelis flammea.
I guess the Ringed Kingfisher mix up came about because the top of the page shows Megaceryle torquata, but this page heading isn't necessarily the Clements name. To see that you have to look under the Clements 5th ed. (updated 2005): entry in the list below, as you've now realised.
Sounds complicated, but you will get used to it!! There will always be a few examples which we can't fathom using Avibase (because of an error with Avibase) and have to check with someone who has the hard copy of the Clements list.
Personally I don't worry about leaving a comment explaining why I've tagged something (sometimes I will, but not as a rule). As far as contributors reacting to us adding tags is concerned, in my experience they rarely do. Very occasionally I get someone asking why, and then I'll explain, but that's quite unusual. The only cases where I think people sometimes mind conforming with the rules is when we want a tag removed because Clements has split a species and the name they're used to using now represents a different species. Generally these problems are down to people using names which are older than Clements 5th edition, not because they're ahead of the game and already on Clements 6th.
Thanks for your patience and help with these anyway, and thanks Alastair for the updated spreadsheet.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thanks Dave for the explanation. Going with the flow.
Have now dealt with or asked for help with the new bad list from the top down through:
Red-tailed Hawk www.flickr.com/photos/12609800
Originally posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
dermoidhome (a group admin) edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
Now through
IMG_0688 www.flickr.com/photos/52336098
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Sorry about mistagging my photo of Ringed Kingfisher, though it seems to have served some purpose as an example of how to resolve problems. I tagged it Megaceryle torquata because that is the name in Clements 6, which I am transitioning to on my own site. I also tagged it Ceryle torquata because that was the name in the original Clements 5, but I missed the change to Ceryle torquatus in the updates to Clements 5. (BTW, odd that the gender was changed and then changed back; I don't know anything about Latin/Greek grammar, but I would imagine that Ceryle and Megaceryle are the same gender).
I appreciate the comment explaining why the tag was added, but I don't think they are necessary. Whey you add a photo to any group pool, you are consenting to allowing other group members to add tags.
Glen
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It was a learning experience for this new green admin, Glen.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
From top through
Purple rumped sunbird - Nectarinia zeylonica www.flickr.com/photos/24025061
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I have reworked the original pool index. (For the tekkies, I did it in PHP which is a much cheaper and more widely available hosting language.)
It is now available at flickr-fbw.co.uk . Please let me know if you find any major problems with it.
I hope to arrange for it to updated on average once per day.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Fantastic!! That's brilliant - thanks Alastair!
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Many thanks Alastair - your efforts are much appreciated.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I can't check IDs but I've corrected around 300 tags that were misspelled or split across two lines.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
How far into the list did you get Marj k? Would like to know where on the list to start up checking again when I get back home to a faster connection.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The list is updated a couple of times a day. The images I tagged no longer appear on it - so start anywhere.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thanks Marj.
Carol, I know it was me that suggested making a note of how far you've got through the list to make it easier for someone else to take off where you left off, but that was because we didn't know how long it would be before the bad-list we had to work from would be updated. Don't know if you've had a chance to explore Alastair's new index pages, but they now contain a new bad list (here) which updates itself automatically roughly once a day. So whilst it's still possible that more than one person might be working on the same update of the list during one day, it will be refreshed pretty soon. I think it was before you joined us that we used to have a similar set up, and then, with the regular refreshing it didn't prove necessary to note how far we'd got when we were working on it. In practice I think a few of us only have the time/inclination/know-how to deal with certain types of untagged photos (e.g. as in Marj's post), so it would be difficult to put a meaningful comment on how far they'd got anyway. I'd suggest that if you (or anyone working on it) finds that most of the first few have already been resolved, try working up from the bottom instead. By the same time next day the resolved ones shouldn't appear any more. Does this make sense?
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Very cool! I had not had a chance to check it as I am on a cellular modem with not enough bars so not trying to push my luck with multiple open windows etc.
What a nice feature for Alistair to have for pool maintenance!
Tell me more about the FBW:checked tag?
Originally posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
dermoidhome (a group admin) edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
The FBW:checked tag is used for photos that for some reason don't have a valid Clements binomen. Hybrids tagged "A X B" was the main reason for it.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Alastair,
I wonder if the index is not updating, as I tagged this one more than 24 hours ago? Just checking.
www.flickr.com/photos/12916011@N05/2374021078/
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I think you might be mistaken. The only name tag on that photo is one that I added today.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
hmmm ... unless there are others by this person who mispelled naumanni and used a hyphen, then the person must have removed my tag.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I've had that happen - see if they remove Alastair's.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
dermoidhome
Perhaps this one was yours-
www.flickr.com/photos/rafael_cediel/2368947885/
By the way, I noticed a long time ago that if I use "Save for web" in Photoshop cs. then for some reason it hyphenates whatever title I give the file. You have to remember to correct it after you uploaded it to Flickr.
Originally posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
mpgoodey (a group admin) edited this topic 6 months ago.
|
|
Tag query on that one shows:
Falco naumanni dermoidhome
Falco-naumani Rafael Cediel
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
That's a new one on me marj how do you query a tag??
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It's another one of Alastair's clever tricks here. Mind you, I can't get it to work - it comes up "Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/flicxjb/public_html/taglookup.php on line 35" - any ideas on that one Alastair?
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It's working now - must have just been a blip.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thanks ... I guess that is the explanation. And the photographer did not remove my tag ... sorry for the misunderstanding.
This pool maintenance has gotten a lot easier with all these great tools you folks have created!
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Woo Hoo. Below 300 on the bad list now!
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Make that below 200! Actually, 128 today!
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It would be great if this could be included in the index:
www.flickr.com/photos/51717731@N00/2500295231/
Does somebody have to add it to the index in addition to the correct tags being added?
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I'll add it on the next update to the hyperlink index. I was holding off pending responses to this thread, but it doesn't look like there's much support for abandoning hybrids altogether. Mind you, with birds like this that's hardly a surprise!
Not sure if it's possible to add things like this to Alastair's automated index or not.
Posted 6 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Field Guide: Birds of the World /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Field Guide: Birds of the World discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Bookmark on Delicious