It is certainly good to have a verification system, but it must give reliable results, or the unknowledgeable become misinformed. That means everyone!
This problem, though not by any means new, reared its head again very recently. Please see the link below for the thread I refer to:-
http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/wildlife/ask/f/902/t/50739.aspx
Can the mods please tell us if they intend to do something about this, even if it will be after the more pressing technical issues have been dealt with.
To clarify, it is NOT the particular thread that I am asking about, it's the general system and how it works (or doesn't work).
I think it would be better not to have a verification system than one that results in incorrect "verifications", especially on a site run by an organisation reputed to be an authority on birds and wildlife.
There will always be mistakes made, and scientific knowledge about some answers will sometimes overtake us, but we must live with those things.
Nevertheless we need to give it our best shot, don't we?
Regards,
Jackdaw
Seriously thinking about trying harder!
I agree. The system needs an overhaul.
It seems a bit daft that any responder can suggest their answer as being correct. Presumably they think their answer is correct or they wouldn't have said it in the first place.
Am I wrong, or is it only the Mods that can verify an answer?
Cheers, Linda.
See my photos on Flickr
Well said, Jackdaw. Everyone who replies to I.D. quiries does so with the best intensions but, to anyone new to birdwatching, it must be confusing that so many people can differ over a correct I.D.
As birders we can all trawl through our library of bird books but there is always one that gets away, it's anoying, but you just accept it as part of the deal. So something better than we have at the moment would help us all, both novice and those with a bit more experience.
Cheers. Tom.