Date: 6/16/25 6:57 am From: clairedthomas via groups.io <claire...> Subject: Re: [labird] LBRC website updates
How do we find out if our sighting is accepted? I had a Hammond’s flycatcher with photos but I don’t recall seeing it in the LRBC report. I may have overlooked it but I don’t think so. I’d like to know if it was accepted or not. Thanks
Claire Thomas
<claire...>
19170 Antenor St.
Mandeville, LA 70471-6937
On Jun 12, 2025, at 3:04 PM, Paul Conover via groups.io <zoiseaux...> wrote:
Labird,
A little clarification.
When a record is Unaccepted, there's always a mention of it in a
report, such as the example below:
*One male (2013-081)* on 6 October 2013, Cameron: Peveto Woods
Sanctuary. This was a brief observation of a bird seen only in flight.
The submitting observer, who is also a Committee Member and who is very
experienced with the species, submitted the report primarily so that it
would be archived. He ultimately voted against his own report stating
that, although he believed that the identification was likely correct,
he agreed with other Members that the brevity of the observation and
resulting limited detail did not warrant acceptance.
However, because the Bylaws say, "Rejected records should also be
published with the above data, except that observers' names
should not be included," no name was included in this summary.
In this case, I was the reporter, and even though I voted against my
record because I felt it lacked the needed evidence to prove the
sighting, I did want it archived. When a record is accepted, I post a
link to the report so people can study the report. However, because of
the Bylaws, putting an unaccepted record would be unacceptable unless I
had express permission or blacked out the observer's name. But to me the
name is pretty important, as that might tell me a lot.
So what I would like to do is this (hopefully it transmits )
*One male (2013-081 <http://www.losbird.org/lbrc/leni133conovera.htm>)* on 6 October 2013, Cameron: Peveto Woods Sanctuary. This was a brief
observation of a bird seen only in flight. The submitting observer, who
is also a Committee Member and who is very experienced with the species,
submitted the report primarily so that it would be archived. He
ultimately voted against his own report stating that, although he
believed that the identification was likely correct, he agreed with
other Members that the brevity of the observation and resulting limited
detail did not warrant acceptance.
Sans such a link, the record is not really archived, but is hidden away
where no one can ever see it, which would defeat my intentions in
submitting it in the first place.
Many reporters know they didn't quite get enough on a sighting, but know
as well that the sighting is "good" for certain purposes, would like
their sightings out in the open for all to see, and don't feel the need
to hide their name.
That's where I was heading with this. Sorry if I wasn't clear, and I
hope this clarified it.
Merci,
Paul
On 6/12/2025 2:13 PM, Paul Conover via groups.io wrote:
Labird,
With summer here, I've been able to spend some time working on
LBRC stuff. Some of the updates are:
All reviewed records have been added to the Photo and Record
Gallery page. In other words, if you're wondering how many records of
Eurasian Wigeon there are for the state, you can flip to that page and
the records are up to date as of the 2024 Newsletter. A reminder that
several species (Long-tailed Duck, Broad-billed Hummingbird, Sargasso
Shearwater, Gray Kingbird, Black-whiskered Vireo) were removed from the
Review List at the Spring Meeting.
Also, thanks to the efforts of the LOS, I've had a new scanner
to work with to scan older paper records. That job will be ongoing for a
long time to come, but I've gotten a small start on it and established a
routine that seems to work. Some of the records I've scanned were not
accepted, which brings up the next topic:
Should Unaccepted records be posted online? LBRC Bylaws say
they shouldn't, but in my mind, even unaccepted records are valuable. In
my experience, when records don't get accepted, it's because they didn't
quite rise to the threshold, not because they were obviously wrong. Many
of my records have failed to make the cut, but it's usually because I
didn't get pictures, or see an important mark, or couldn't remove the
possibility of a look-alike species, not because I made an
embarrassingly bad ID. That's true of most unaccepted records; the
records are totally plausible, but they don't remove plausible doubt.
Many observers continue to have faith in their own records and
would love their unaccepted reports to be visible where others can see
them for themselves. I'm one of them. I don't think the committee "got
them wrong." Instead, I think that some part of the report might be
useful for others to see, whether it's the date, the fieldmarks, or
whatever. And, importantly, some keen observer might note something that
everyone else has missed, or might be aware of some new fieldmark that
would cause a second look at the report.
So, if you're good with having your unaccepted reports posted,
or if you absolutely hate the idea, please let me know.
In other news, I've also tried to clean up the LBRC website,
including updating the homepage for continuity with the LOS homepage. If
you notice any errors or display issues, please alert me asap so I can
work on them.
