If people make an observation of, let’s say, possible bird holes or a hollow trunk. And I think the person is using this photo to have a physical location for setting up a nightcam for the birds later.
How would we go about identifying that? Change Evidence of Organism to No and done deal? Or?
I looked for this in the curator guide, and I searched the forum on different keywords, but I couldn’t find the answer. I searched for ‘bird holes’ ‘bird’ ‘holes’ ‘surroundings’.
Maybe the ‘no recent evidence’ bit in the DQA? It sounds like that might fit here. :)
The uploader can always vote against it if they disagree & chat about why they think something in the photo does constitute evidence, so it wouldn’t hurt anything to mark them down in the quality analysis, even if this is an issue that might occasionally get a bit subjective.
in a case where there is just a hole and no bird, i think the question to ask is: “is it possible that a bird made this hole?” if so, then i think the identification of the animal that made the hole can be debated. if not, then i think it’s safe to say that a hole is not an organism. so if the hole is in another organism like a tree, one option would be to ID the tree maybe. but generally, if it’s clear that the observer intended to label this for a particular bird that they suspect lives in the hole, then it seems to me like the best thing would be would mark no evidence of organism (no evidence of bird).