Obviously incorrect reports on eBird

[Nick Allen]

I'm not getting at you or anyone else posting here about the 'obviously' label, though maybe the admin people of this forum really should change the title of the thread to something more positive/querying and less cut and dried/disrespectful.

I doubt the submitter compiled the list via the website as both the distance and time reported are too precise. Why didn't they just choose 1 hour 30 minutes or 2 miles rather than 1hr 27 and 2.01 miles? If inputting later via the web version I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be so precise. Sometimes the operating system and version of the smart phone gets appended to the list, sometimes not, so that isn't a 100% way of working out how the list was put together and submitted. It's also possible to edit the time and distance after submitting via the app and web, but why would you do so unless the amount of time/distance was significant?

I'm pretty sure if you type in a space for the comments then that is accepted by eBird as a comment (nobody should do this unless they enjoy annoying the reviewers). Likewise 'count' or 'at the estuary edge' or 'in a tree' tend not to be very enlightening and are more effort/time consuming to the submitter than a single key stroke.

Eight years of my life I believe were wasted reviewing records for eBird and there are certainly problems with the system, though it must still be the best and easiest way of recording bird sightings in New Zealand. The main problem I saw was poor onboarding and a lack of training on how to submit useful data, and to provide useful comments when prompted. That anyone can use the system without formal training and a requirement to display competence is great, but leads to issues when others want to use the data, unless reliable data totally swamps the unreliable submissions, or your knowledge of birds/eBird is at a level where you sense something might not be right. When I stopped reviewing almost 2 years ago I felt the useful data to questionable or poor data ratio was nowhere near the level in my region of New Zealand that the data could easily be read and used to work out bird distribution/numbers in any detail or with certainty.

[SomesBirder]

I'm not getting at you or anyone else posting here about the 'obviously' label, though maybe the admin people of this forum really should change the title of the thread to something more positive/querying and less cut and dried/disrespectful.

That would be fine. When I started the thread it actually was intended for posting about bird reports that are definitely and undoubtedly wrong; criteria that the report of a North Island Kōkako at Zealandia fit perfectly. But I understand that the thread is more useful if it just encompasses any questionable eBird reports from NZ.

[Mike Bickerdike]

Interesting observations here:
https://ebird.org/checklist/S207283029

Presumably the ostriches were not misidentified but they are unlikely to be wild. The black-faced cuckooshrike is either a very exciting observation, or not actually a black-faced cuckooshrike.

[Neil Fitzgerald]

Hi Nick, as SomesBirder said, the thread started 5 years ago talking about "obviously" incorrect reports. Hihi on the Poor Knights for instance. There is obviously a lot of grey zone when it comes to what is obvious, and the thread may have drifted since. I'm happy to rename it to something like 'Probably incorrect..' if the OP wants that.

[paradoxdinokipi]

Maybe questionable instead?

[Brendan T]

I note that Chestnut-breasted Shelducks were reported again at Mangere.

When I followed up the previous report, I observed that there were two Paradise Shelducks that were in such a moult that there was white present on their faces, and wondered at the time if this feature may have been responsible for the report, though there were no comments or photos on the list to cross-reference so this was pure speculation on my part.

In this new report, there is mention of white behind the beaks, but there is no remark concerning a white neck ring, black undertail, chestnut breast, etc, and so I wonder if a similar thing may have again occurred.

https://ebird.org/checklist/S209821395

(This one is a great example of not being obviously incorrect).

[Bobolink]

Checklist S206038482 is from Hawkes Bay not Northland

[benackerley]

Cape gannets used instead of Australasian: https://ebird.org/checklist/S211310763

[benackerley]

https://ebird.org/checklist/S211788944

[burgind]

Hi all,
Please do keep posting any checklists that you feel need following up for review here. It is very helpful for myself and the rest of the NZ review team to follow up on sightings/checklists that may have slipped through filters. Alternative/additional places to flag these are in the 'eBird New Zealand' Facebook group (which is a bit more private than this very public forum) or indeed contacting the NZ eBird Coordination team via email nzbirdatlas (at) wmil.co.nz.
Many thanks again!
Happy birding,
Dan