Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
-
- Posts: 1874
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:43 am
- Location: Christchurch
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
It's been fixed already.
- Samsperdy
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:26 pm
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
andrewcrossland wrote:No to the 4 Royal Albatross at the Bromley Oxidation Ponds. Maybe one seen off the New Brigton Pier but not 4 in the estuary or ponds. The observer as Don Goodale, Birds NZ Canty Rep, and he'll no doubt fix the inadvertent error as soon as he realises?!
Yes he fixed the checklist sometime ago.
- AngryBird45
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:50 am
- Location: Waimakariri District, Canterbury
- Contact:
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
Pretty sure the Brown Teal is a scaup... https://ebird.org/atlasnz/checklist/S101117918
133 birds on my life list since 17 June 2020, latest bird Common Tern.
93 birds on my 2024 year list as of 6:50pm 13 January, latest bird Indian Peafowl.
15 y/o birder from the Waimak and Paradise Shelduck campaigner: facebook.com/paradiseshelduck.
93 birds on my 2024 year list as of 6:50pm 13 January, latest bird Indian Peafowl.
15 y/o birder from the Waimak and Paradise Shelduck campaigner: facebook.com/paradiseshelduck.
-
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
Yup it’s a female Scaup
-
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
Auckland Island Teal on Campbell Island? Not likely! https://ebird.org/atlasnz/checklist/S77503419
- Michael Szabo
- Posts: 2567
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 12:30 pm
- Contact:
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
This reported sighting of 4 NZ Storm Petrels off Otaki beach this morning lacks any photos:
https://ebird.org/checklist/S107440954
https://ebird.org/checklist/S107440954
'New Zealand Birders' Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/857726274293085
- Oscar Thomas
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:15 pm
- Location: Dunedin
- Contact:
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
Michael Szabo wrote:This reported sighting of 4 NZ Storm Petrels off Otaki beach this morning lacks any photos:
https://ebird.org/checklist/S107440954
That's an inspired checklist, and at this time of year the Salvin's mollymawks are almost just as unlikely. Hopefully someone gets in touch with this observer to try and decipher what they were seeing.
-
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 5:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
ZionCooper wrote:Auckland Island Teal on Campbell Island? Not likely! https://ebird.org/atlasnz/checklist/S77503419
Checklist has been changed.
- Michael Szabo
- Posts: 2567
- Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 12:30 pm
- Contact:
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
Does anyone know who the eBird moderator is for the Kapiti coast please?
'New Zealand Birders' Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/857726274293085
- Peter Frost
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:59 am
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
This photo appeared on the NZ Bird Atlas page on eBird yesterday. It has to be wrongly identified unless some miraculous process takes place during growth to transform a pointy stilt-like bill used for picking objects off a surface, as this one is doing, into one that is broad and used for dabbling, as a grey teal would have.
I've obviously blurred the photographer's name, because mistakes can be made, even inadvertently when adding media (clicking on the wrong species), but the broader point is that such errors can creep into these records and not be picked up (until later perhaps, fortuitiously so in this case). It also isn't clear if this was entered as part of the Atlas process or comes from an earlier submission, given that there is no Macaulay accession number attached to the photo.
I've obviously blurred the photographer's name, because mistakes can be made, even inadvertently when adding media (clicking on the wrong species), but the broader point is that such errors can creep into these records and not be picked up (until later perhaps, fortuitiously so in this case). It also isn't clear if this was entered as part of the Atlas process or comes from an earlier submission, given that there is no Macaulay accession number attached to the photo.