ajohn

Although, on the other hand, I would argue that because this species is easy to see and relatively easy to identify, it would be a useful species for beginners to learn. In particular, learning that stonechats are common in open country habitats where flycatchers are unusual is a useful first step (how many of us would have instantly responded 'No' if this thread had been titled "Snowy browed Flycatcher at Long Valley?")

There is no doubt that certain species (gulls, some shorebirds, warblers, certain flycatchers, etc.) are much more difficult to identify, and learning how to identify common species should be the first step on bird ID. In my opinion the bird ID section of the forum would be more useful if they were not dominated by requests for ID of birds which turn out to be stonechats.

I realise that it takes time for beginner birders to learn some of these species, but I sometimes think there is a tendency to post pictures and ask for ID from more experienced birders, rather than taking the time to work it out. This wastes people's time but checking the post to see yet another stonechat (or dusky warbler, which seems to be another regular species).

ajohn

So, my comments provoked a bit of a reaction. I was actually expecting that, and part of the reason I posted in the way I did was to make people think a bit about the pros and cons of posting pictures asking for ID. I actually have no problem with beginners posting and asking for ID, and I know that in many cases it is part of the learning process. I wasn't meaning my comments to be a criticism of quaali (apologies if it was taken as such), but the comments from Geoff made it an appropriate location to post these comments.

BUT I think that there are cases when someone has taken a picture and has made little attempt on their own to work out the species. As mentioned by others, I like the posts when someone has attempted an ID and posts saying "Stonechat?" rather than "ID please", which does show some effort has been made (and of course this thread falls into that category). There are plenty of resources to help - books, websites, etc. It does not take much of an internet search to come up with an image such as this, which (at least to me) bears no resemblance to the subject bird in this thread: http://orientalbirdimages.org/se ... _ID=&pagesize=1

I do usually try to point out the relevant features of a bird when I post a response about ID (although not always, I admit). this is to try to encourage beginners to learn about how to identify a species rather than just telling them what it is. My point was that I start to get a bit fed up after writing a number of times about the plumage/structure of a particular species, the habitat it is seen in, or the behaviour. It feels at times that I have tried to teach people about ways to identify a bird, only to see pictures of the same species appearing again after one or two days, which makes it seem like I am wasting my time. The result of this is to either write a brief answer (giving no reasons for ID) or to not bother answering at all (with the attitude that others should go away and look it up).

One final point. There is sometimes an attitude towards experienced birders that "You were all beginners once, it is your duty to help the beginners now". That is true, of course, but people should also remember that the fact that we were all beginners once means that we know how we learnt (and are still learning) about bird ID. In my case (and I think many others), this was not from asking someone else to identify a photo and moving on, but from spending time in the field looking at common birds, learning their characteristics, learning which species were more likely to be seen in a particular habitat/location, and becoming familiar with these. Yes, we all make mistakes initially but that is part of the learning process. If you are familiar with common species, it is much easier to pick out the bird which is different and rarer.

Sorry for the long thread!

[ Last edited by ajohn at 23/01/2013 09:17 ]