Re: [nfc-l] Ebird and NFC protocol
Andy et al, Magnus raises the same question I had regarding your message. Why would algorithm-detected NFC data be considered "incidental" rather than a "stationary count"? Seems effort and methodology would be very explicitly quantified. I assume this has to do with how "stationary count" data are currently analyzed by eBird, but not sure the details... Nevertheless, a nighttime point count is still, well, a point count. Is there a concern that the algorithms are not reliable enough to detect all species / individuals? It would be helpful to know a bit more about the reasoning for those of us who are considering submitting NFC data to eBird. Thanks! Matt Matt Sarver Greenville, DE From: Magnus Robb To: Andrew Farnsworth Cc: nf...@list.cornell.edu Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [nfc-l] Ebird and NFC protocol Hi Andrew and others, I started using eBird exactly because it had a facility for entering NFC data, and it seemed a suitable place for me to keep my records. I noted that automated remote listening data was not supposed to be entered, but since none of my identifications are automated, I did not feel excluded. I had not fully understood that real-time was the key or that listing concerns (which are no concern of mine) were the reason for not making the NFC protocol more inclusive. My assumption was that as quite possibly the only ebirder regularly entering NFCs from Europe, something that didn't quite fit the rules was better than nothing! Now I am contemplating following your suggestion about creating a listening station identity, entering things as 'incidental', etc but I worry that I will misrepresent myself as they were planned observations for which effort data is available. Your email seems to put NFC people in two camps: those who collect all their data by ear and those who let software do the identification. I belong to neither, as I usually record while I sleep then identify the sounds by ear and eye the next day. Do I really have to edit two autumns worth of regular ebird NFC entries? While I am on the subject of NFCs on eBird. Is there some way that I can find all the NFC checklists around the world for a particular date? My own seem to disappear into a black hole and are not easily visible in the system, except to me. That may be one advantage of making them 'incidental' instead of NFC counts. all the best, Magnus Robb On 21 Feb 2013, at 14:27:12, Andrew Farnsworth wrote: Hi all, >I'd like to chime in on this timely post as well. Thank you, Laurent, for the >initial question, and thank you, Rob, for continuing the discussion. By way of >introduction, for those that do not know or that recently joined the list, I >work for the Lab of Ornithology as the BirdCast project leader and work >closely with the eBird team. I helped to draft the NFC Protocol. > > >eBird definitely welcomes all of the acoustic data that we can provide. The >protocol is clear on the real-time listening methods, for those that do and do >not use amplification >(http://ebird.org/content/ebird/about/nfc-count-protocol). Yes, you can enter >calls you hear by the NFC Protocol if you hear them in real-time, whether by >your ear or via a speaker-microphone-recording station. If you happen to be >recording, spectrograms and audio files make ideal documentation to embed or >link in the checklist. Here's a nice diurnal example: >http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S12046094. > >As Rob suggests, correctly, one can also enter other flight call data as well, >such as data recorded by an automated recording station. However, if you do >this, please be clear that you should do all of the following: >- Create a separate, non-personal account (n.b. the recorded/non real time >data violate listing rules in that you cannot count what you didn't witness). >- Enter these data as incidental sightings. >- Include as detailed a description as you can in the comments about how the >recorded data were collected (e.g. specifics on recording gear, sound analysis >package used, algorithm used, etc.) > > >A few additional comments: >For eBird, having some rules for listing is an important incentive, since >eBird does have some competitive outputs. We hope to have a better way to >address these in the future (e.g. a way to "not count" certain submissions, if >you choose), but for now, it is important to respect these so flight call >counters are not seen as "cheating." Treating your flight call recording >station as a separate observer is, in some ways, appropriate. Obviously, for >scientific use, we want to know that you recorded the bird at that site, so >submission is OK. However, we do hope to develop a way to add "remote >listening" protocol in the future, which is part of the reason that the >current protocol discourages submission of remote listening data. So, if you >record an important yard bi
[nfc-l] On the utility of avian acoustic study at wind energy facilities
NFCers, In the course of trying to win a competitive research contract sometimes one offers an in-kind (pro bono) study to sweeten the proposal. That's the case with the acoustic study at a NY wind energy project reported at the link below. The data was gathered ~5 years ago but the report was delayed in publication due to complications with other associated research projects I wasn't involved with. This acoustic study was initially just going to involve data from a single monitoring station, but various bumps along the road led me to include data from other avian acoustic monitoring stations I had running in the region. This turned out to facilitate discussion on a number of interesting questions regarding the application of avian acoustic monitoring at industrial wind energy projects. The report is currently listed first on the following webpage. I welcome any feedback or discussion: http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/Research-and-Development-Technical-Reports/Environmental-Reports.aspx The 20,000+ calls collected from the study will eventually be put online at oldbird.org, but I need to go through them again to update species classifications. Bill E -- NFC-L List Info: http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NFC_WELCOME http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NFC_RULES http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NFC-L_SubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm ARCHIVES: 1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nfc-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html 2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NFC-L 3) http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/NFCL.html Please submit your observations to eBird: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/ --
Re: [nfc-l] Ebird and NFC protocol
Hi all, I think Magnus makes some good points, and the option posed by Andrew is a good one. Another comparatively simple fix to get around the constraints of the listing issue would be to give users the option to opt in to the listing competition or opt out. A simple check box that could be selected if one wanted to contribute data but not be included in the various Top 100 competitions would seem to work. I think a growing number of eBird users are contributing data because they want to share data, not to compete. They are quite happy having eBird simply tally their own numbers in the My eBird pages and have little interest in how their numbers compare to other people's. Cheers Doug On Feb 21, 2013, at 7:09 AM, Magnus Robb wrote: > Hi Andrew and others, > > I started using eBird exactly because it had a facility for entering NFC > data, and it seemed a suitable place for me to keep my records. I noted that > automated remote listening data was not supposed to be entered, but since > none of my identifications are automated, I did not feel excluded. I had not > fully understood that real-time was the key or that listing concerns (which > are no concern of mine) were the reason for not making the NFC protocol more > inclusive. My assumption was that as quite possibly the only ebirder > regularly entering NFCs from Europe, something that didn't quite fit the > rules was better than nothing! Now I am contemplating following your > suggestion about creating a listening station identity, entering things as > 'incidental', etc but I worry that I will misrepresent myself as they were > planned observations for which effort data is available. > > Your email seems to put NFC people in two camps: those who collect all their > data by ear and those who let software do the identification. I belong to > neither, as I usually record while I sleep then identify the sounds by ear > and eye the next day. Do I really have to edit two autumns worth of regular > ebird NFC entries? > > While I am on the subject of NFCs on eBird. Is there some way that I can find > all the NFC checklists around the world for a particular date? My own seem to > disappear into a black hole and are not easily visible in the system, except > to me. That may be one advantage of making them 'incidental' instead of NFC > counts. > > all the best, > > Magnus Robb > > > > On 21 Feb 2013, at 14:27:12, Andrew Farnsworth wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I'd like to chime in on this timely post as well. Thank you, Laurent, for >> the initial question, and thank you, Rob, for continuing the discussion. By >> way of introduction, for those that do not know or that recently joined the >> list, I work for the Lab of Ornithology as the BirdCast project leader and >> work closely with the eBird team. I helped to draft the NFC Protocol. >> >> eBird definitely welcomes all of the acoustic data that we can provide. The >> protocol is clear on the real-time listening methods, for those that do and >> do not use amplification >> (http://ebird.org/content/ebird/about/nfc-count-protocol). Yes, you can >> enter calls you hear by the NFC Protocol if you hear them in real-time, >> whether by your ear or via a speaker-microphone-recording station. If you >> happen to be recording, spectrograms and audio files make ideal >> documentation to embed or link in the checklist. Here's a nice diurnal >> example: http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S12046094. >> >> As Rob suggests, correctly, one can also enter other flight call data as >> well, such as data recorded by an automated recording station. However, if >> you do this, please be clear that you should do all of the following: >> - Create a separate, non-personal account (n.b. the recorded/non real time >> data violate listing rules in that you cannot count what you didn't witness). >> - Enter these data as incidental sightings. >> - Include as detailed a description as you can in the comments about how the >> recorded data were collected (e.g. specifics on recording gear, sound >> analysis package used, algorithm used, etc.) >> >> A few additional comments: >> For eBird, having some rules for listing is an important incentive, since >> eBird does have some competitive outputs. We hope to have a better way to >> address these in the future (e.g. a way to "not count" certain submissions, >> if you choose), but for now, it is important to respect these so flight call >> counters are not seen as "cheating." Treating your flight call recording >> station as a separate observer is, in some ways, appropriate. Obviously, for >> scientific use, we want to know that you recorded the bird at that site, so >> submission is OK. However, we do hope to develop a way to add "remote >> listening" protocol in the future, which is part of the reason that the >> current protocol discourages submission of remote listening data. So, if you >> record an important yard bird,
Re: [nfc-l] Ebird and NFC protocol
Hi Andrew and others, I started using eBird exactly because it had a facility for entering NFC data, and it seemed a suitable place for me to keep my records. I noted that automated remote listening data was not supposed to be entered, but since none of my identifications are automated, I did not feel excluded. I had not fully understood that real-time was the key or that listing concerns (which are no concern of mine) were the reason for not making the NFC protocol more inclusive. My assumption was that as quite possibly the only ebirder regularly entering NFCs from Europe, something that didn't quite fit the rules was better than nothing! Now I am contemplating following your suggestion about creating a listening station identity, entering things as 'incidental', etc but I worry that I will misrepresent myself as they were planned observations for which effort data is available. Your email seems to put NFC people in two camps: those who collect all their data by ear and those who let software do the identification. I belong to neither, as I usually record while I sleep then identify the sounds by ear and eye the next day. Do I really have to edit two autumns worth of regular ebird NFC entries? While I am on the subject of NFCs on eBird. Is there some way that I can find all the NFC checklists around the world for a particular date? My own seem to disappear into a black hole and are not easily visible in the system, except to me. That may be one advantage of making them 'incidental' instead of NFC counts. all the best, Magnus Robb On 21 Feb 2013, at 14:27:12, Andrew Farnsworth wrote: > Hi all, > I'd like to chime in on this timely post as well. Thank you, Laurent, for the > initial question, and thank you, Rob, for continuing the discussion. By way > of introduction, for those that do not know or that recently joined the list, > I work for the Lab of Ornithology as the BirdCast project leader and work > closely with the eBird team. I helped to draft the NFC Protocol. > > eBird definitely welcomes all of the acoustic data that we can provide. The > protocol is clear on the real-time listening methods, for those that do and > do not use amplification > (http://ebird.org/content/ebird/about/nfc-count-protocol). Yes, you can enter > calls you hear by the NFC Protocol if you hear them in real-time, whether by > your ear or via a speaker-microphone-recording station. If you happen to be > recording, spectrograms and audio files make ideal documentation to embed or > link in the checklist. Here's a nice diurnal example: > http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S12046094. > > As Rob suggests, correctly, one can also enter other flight call data as > well, such as data recorded by an automated recording station. However, if > you do this, please be clear that you should do all of the following: > - Create a separate, non-personal account (n.b. the recorded/non real time > data violate listing rules in that you cannot count what you didn't witness). > - Enter these data as incidental sightings. > - Include as detailed a description as you can in the comments about how the > recorded data were collected (e.g. specifics on recording gear, sound > analysis package used, algorithm used, etc.) > > A few additional comments: > For eBird, having some rules for listing is an important incentive, since > eBird does have some competitive outputs. We hope to have a better way to > address these in the future (e.g. a way to "not count" certain submissions, > if you choose), but for now, it is important to respect these so flight call > counters are not seen as "cheating." Treating your flight call recording > station as a separate observer is, in some ways, appropriate. Obviously, for > scientific use, we want to know that you recorded the bird at that site, so > submission is OK. However, we do hope to develop a way to add "remote > listening" protocol in the future, which is part of the reason that the > current protocol discourages submission of remote listening data. So, if you > record an important yard bird, or local record, by non-real-time methods, > enter it accordingly. > > The eBird team is planning to post some additional information on this topic > on the eBird site later this year. I will make sure to cross-post that > information here as soon as the story goes live. > > Good (nocturnal) birding! > Andrew > > -- > BirdCast Project Leader > Information Science, Cornell Lab of Ornithology > a...@cornell.edu > -- > NFC-L List Info: > Welcome and Basics > Rules and Information > Subscribe, Configuration and Leave > Archives: > The Mail Archive > Surfbirds > BirdingOnThe.Net > Please submit your observations to eBird! > -- -- NFC-L List Info: http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NFC_WELCOME http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NFC_RULES http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NFC-L_SubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm ARCHIVES: 1) http://www.mail-archive.com/n
Re: [nfc-l] Ebird and NFC protocol
Hi all, I'd like to chime in on this timely post as well. Thank you, Laurent, for the initial question, and thank you, Rob, for continuing the discussion. By way of introduction, for those that do not know or that recently joined the list, I work for the Lab of Ornithology as the BirdCast project leader and work closely with the eBird team. I helped to draft the NFC Protocol. eBird definitely welcomes all of the acoustic data that we can provide. The protocol is clear on the real-time listening methods, for those that do and do not use amplification ( http://ebird.org/content/ebird/about/nfc-count-protocol). Yes, you can enter calls you hear by the NFC Protocol if you hear them in *real-time*, whether by your ear or via a speaker-microphone-recording station. If you happen to be recording, spectrograms and audio files make ideal documentation to embed or link in the checklist. Here's a nice diurnal example: http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S12046094. As Rob suggests, correctly, one can also enter other flight call data as well, such as data recorded by an automated recording station. However, if you do this, please be clear that you should do all of the following: - Create a *separate*, *non-personal* account (n.b. the recorded/non real time data violate listing rules in that you cannot count what you didn't witness). - Enter these data as *incidental sightings.* - Include as detailed a description as you can in the comments about how the recorded data were collected (e.g. specifics on recording gear, sound analysis package used, algorithm used, etc.) A few additional comments: For eBird, having some rules for listing is an important incentive, since eBird does have some competitive outputs. We hope to have a better way to address these in the future (e.g. a way to "not count" certain submissions, if you choose), but for now, it is important to respect these so flight call counters are not seen as "cheating." Treating your flight call recording station as a separate observer is, in some ways, appropriate. Obviously, for scientific use, we want to know that you recorded the bird at that site, so submission is OK. However, we do hope to develop a way to add "remote listening" protocol in the future, which is part of the reason that the current protocol discourages submission of remote listening data. So, if you record an important yard bird, or local record, by non-real-time methods, enter it accordingly. The eBird team is planning to post some additional information on this topic on the eBird site later this year. I will make sure to cross-post that information here as soon as the story goes live. Good (nocturnal) birding! Andrew -- BirdCast Project Leader Information Science, Cornell Lab of Ornithology a...@cornell.edu -- NFC-L List Info: http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NFC_WELCOME http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NFC_RULES http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NFC-L_SubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm ARCHIVES: 1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nfc-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html 2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NFC-L 3) http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/NFCL.html Please submit your observations to eBird: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/ --
