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’.
If the photo has evidence of birds it doesn’t really matter what else the photo is used for.
But there is no evidence of birds, I forgot to mention that.
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.
Then what are “bird holes”? I would identify whatever seems to be the subject of the observation. If the subject is something non-living, then mark the DQA.
I would think “bird hole” would be a nesting hole, or exploratory excavations for insects pecked out by birds such as woodpeckers and sapsuckers, which I would mark as evidence of organism.
Comment withdrawn due to incorrect understanding of the No Recent Evidence tag (it is for signs of long gone (100~ years) animals as per the reply below)
This is for 100 year old + observations… fossils and the like.
It’s not something to be used in this instance.
" the community agrees the observation doesn’t present recent (~100 years) evidence of the organism (e.g. fossils, but tracks, scat, and dead leaves are ok)"
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).
Then if you can agree that a bird made it, but not what kind of bird, bump it back to “Birds.”
Thanks for that clarification.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.