Date: 6/16/25 9:54 am From: Paul Conover via groups.io <zoiseaux...> Subject: Re: [labird] LBRC website updates
Claire, Labird,
The Hammond's is in the round that we're currently finishing
up. That round has all of the records that are posted on the Pending
Reports page, for the most part records from last fall and winter. The
records that don't reach a decision in this round will go into the next
round, which will probably go out soon and be finished fairly quickly.
That process gets faster as the batch of records gets whittled down, and
I'm expecting to have the next Newsletter out by October or November.
In the meantime, the process isn't top secret, just a bit time
consuming because of the legwork and the review involved, but I'm always
happy to give updates. Feel free to write me, and I can definitely let
you know the current status of your record.
Thanks,
Paul Conover
LBRC Secretary
On 6/16/2025 8:57 AM, Claire Thomas wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> In this case, clicking on the link should take readers to
>> <http://www.losbird.org/lbrc/leni133conovera.htm> where they can see the
>> actual report.
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Merci,
>>>
>>> Paul Conover
>>>
>>> LBRC Secretary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
