How to disagree with an observation when no lifeform is in evidence? Someone suggested an ID of a bat to species level, and another person agreed with the ID. The evidence was a very short segment of a spectrogram (power spectrum), and a guess from some unreliable auto-ID software. In my opinion there is not even enough evidence to support Animalia, let alone a species ID. So what do I put in the ‘Suggest an identification’ field to represent ‘No evidence of life’?
Under the Data Quality Assessment at the bottom of the observation, there is an option to vote down “Evidence of Organism”. You can also leave a comment if you wish.
Spectrograms and bat software is actually so reliable that’s actually all scientists use anymore. They deploy the equipment and use the recordings to determine what’s there. At least that’s what they taught us in college (fish and wildlife technician) and what they trained us to do.
What’s the link to this observation?
If there’s a spectogram, even a bad one, it is an evidence I think, like a blurred photo, sure we shouldn’t just believe someone but I hope the author actually heard something and it should be something from Animalia, even if it’s a human noise. You actually could do both id and vote for lack of evidence.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
@melodi_96. A photo that is so blurred that you can’t even be sure there is an animal there, is not evidence of an animal.
I know… That’s why I’ve been homeless, unemployed and basically dying since I graduated in June 2019.
Nobody will accept or respect the diploma. It’s completely ruined my life. That college.
Regardless of what you both think of whatever expertise each of you has, please keep in mind that the observation “belongs to the observer”, and you are a guest being allowed to share in what they see (or hear), so make sure you act appropriately. I would strongly suggest keeping any ranting well away from their observations…
@kiwifergus. Please note that the original question is not about the accuracy of auto-ID software. I would really appreciate it if people would stick to the question, rather than peddling their their own theories on auto-ID. The question is not about auto ID, but if people insist on promoting theories that seem patently false to me, I reserve my right of reply, and my right to correct what I see as misinformation. Now can we please get back to the original question?
then why did you say:
I don’t have opinions either way on the accuracy of that software, but you basically invited that challenge.
My concern is to make sure that you both don’t end up having that discussion on the observeration… direct message might be a good place to have it, or continue here, just don’t involve the observer. And just my opinion, I might add…
@kiwifergus. I have not invited a challenge, I stated a commonly accepted fact. It is a fact that is vouched for the the manufacturers of the EMT software. I have not involved the observer, or mentioned the observers name, nor have I provided a link to any observation. I included the the text you highlighted as background information. That EMT2 auto-ID can’t be relied on for definitive species ID, is a commonly accepted truism amongst most bat workers I have spoken to here in the UK, and this same thing is also pointed out in the literature supplied by the manufacturer of the EMT software. If the manufactures say it can’t give a definitive ID, and that the suggested ID (that’s all it is a suggestion) should be checked by an expert, then it probably can’t give a definitive ID!
Now can we PLEASE return to the question, which if you have forgotten, is: “What do I put in the ‘Suggest an identification’ field to represent ‘No evidence of life’?”.
I think the first response here was adequate and we seem to be getting a little heated, so I’m going to close this temporarily.
This topic was automatically opened after 7 hours.
It is, if there’s a spot in the sky it is an animal or human object, if there’s a sound it’s an animal, including human, unless it’s some deep sea sounds, and added bat id is a sign it’s not a sound from water.
In the case of bat chirps, a human may not be able to hear it at all, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that you hope the author actually heard something. It very likely was out of range of human hearing.
I took her to mean “heard via the device”, just as we “see via the binoculars” a bird in a tree too far to make out with the naked eye, so I think it has nothing to do with human hearing range.
It depends on the bat species, some of their calls are clearly heard, also you can easily hear them flying, without author we can’t say that there was nothing they could hear. And if the person used that audio-id device there was an interest in iding that sound. Anyway, no reson to discuss such details if we haven’t actually saw the observation.
Only a young person would say that. I need a bat detector to hear grasshoppers and crickets.
Some of them can be heard. I certainly can hear the Mexican free-tailed bats flying around my neighborhood. But some bat calls definitely can’t be heard by people, no matter how good their hearing. It’s just not physically possible using human anatomy. For those sounds, recording is the only option. The recording can then be slowed down until it’s in the range of human hearing, and then it can be evaluated separate from any AI.