Is the Big Garden Birdwatch a waste of our time?

Good point but if you are registered they already have your details of your postcode.

Grhm said:

you never know, the survey results may one day be of interest to scientists rather than just empty-headed suits with degrees in marketing.

Grhm,  The results have been of interest to scientists for many years and the results have been shown to be accurate and identified trends later replicated in other 'more scientific' studies.

People science is often criticised but is a large part of most surveys.  I think it is the fact that 500,000+ people submit their results that average out any discrepancies.  It is a maximum count survey so the outcome is an assessment of what is found across the country. Knowing what was in your garden at a certain time might only be relevant if you did it every day/week as per the BTO Garden watch.

Of course any name gathering exercise can be seen as a marketing tool but you can't blame them for that, they get a lot of people join at this time of year.  That equates to money and the ability to use that income for conservation. 

Grhm said - 'Empty headed suits with degrees in marketing'...your comment is misinformed, most of us don't where suits! I jest, but you are wrong. The scientists behind the results analysis are at the top of their game and have a wealth of experience with wildlife monitoring survey data and our set up delivers them the data they need to provide accurate results.

Of course there is a massive marketing effort behind the survey as well as the scientific monitoring but that is essential if we are going to make this survey as big as it is. It's the biggest mass participation wildlife survey in the world as far as I know!

The results we have gathered over the years (34 years of the survey) have provided a valid insight into trends in garden birds and the results have replicated the trends shown in other surveys such as the decline in species such as the starling and house sparrow and the increase in wintering blackcaps. It's also a fun activity that engages whole families with nature, it's a win win for us from a scientific and people engagement point of view.

I'm assumming you took part in the survey from the address that you were asked to give during submitting the results? Therefore we have the location of where the survey took place. If you did the survey for a location away from the address you gave, there was an option to submit results for other locations at the very start of the submission process to allow us to accurately capture such surveys. If you weren't sure, we're always happy to help so you could have contacted us!

Because we DO record results geographically we can break the data down into county and country lists.

As for time of day, this isn't the main focus of the survey so we don't ask for it.

Thanks for taking part!

Hi Grhm,

Your not getting the point, with your address the recorders can pin-point exactly where you did your BGBW.

They can see which areas need improving as large numbers in gardens means 2 things.

1. this is the only vital food source in the area and 2. there isn't enough vegitation for birds to perch, shelter and roost.

Your point about time doesn't matter, but what I will say is when you have a day spare look around your area and look for gatherings of birds and note the time scale, usually around mid morning through to mid afternoon. This indicates that they know (officially) that the food will be put out or is out (especially Starlings!) and listen to chittering in trees and hedges, this means that they are calling each other about food and water hence the gathering.

You've signed up to this because either you love the birds or decided to go along with it, if your still not happy then unsuscribe to the emails and mailing.

Hope this Helps.

Ian

Grhm - I guess that whether you see an hour spent watching birds in your garden as a waste of time is entirely your call. The same methodology repeated annually, provided that enough people do it, yields a serviceable mass of garden bird population trend data to emerge across the nation as a whole.

Personally I had a fine time doing my survey in light hearted competition with a friend elsewhere in England. We used instant messaging to provide each other with real time updates. I only recorded 8 species but it's all valid data.

It's healthy to query a methodological approach, but there's not really any call for snarky comments about suits. 

How can the pleasure of watching our feathered friends a waste of time.  Unless we tag all the birds we can only count what we see atone time. Perhaps I look at the simple aspect of a survey and that it is an indication of what is in the garden at any one time.  I did not have my hawk for an example who visits daily and may partake of my menu!  But due to the weather I did have long tailed tits and bramblings also yellow hammers which was only due to the snow.

I did it for my pleasure mainly and will continue to do do as long as I can.  Let the bowfins worry about the data and just take pleasure from watching the birds as I do every day in life even if on holiday.  

I personally did my watch at a time normally my garden was busy which for my opinion made sense.

Jus enjoy the garden and the birds in it and count your blessings......

It's a trend survey and if it's got a secondary benefit of raising interest in such matters then good.

I never find time watching wildlife to be time wasted.  Rather it's a privilege to be enjoyed.

Curious that respondents seem more affronted by my suggestion that RSPB employees wear suits than my suggestion that they might be scientifically inept.

Bob Philpott wrote: "the fact that 500,000+ people submit their results that average out any discrepancies"

If the statisticians have to rely on large scale "averaging out" to compensate for a lack of detailed information then it means the survey isn't properly designed.  Since the RSPB designed and conducted this survey themselves, there is no excuse for that.  The current survey questions were clearly designed by marketeers not ecologists.  I repeat:  In future similar surveys the RSPB should ask where and when the birdwatch was carried out.  Even if they don't currently have the capability (or intention) of analysing that information, things may be different in the future, and the data may become invaluable.  But if the information isn't collected it can never be used.  

Ian H wrote: "I'm assuming you took part in the survey from the address that you were asked to give during submitting the results"

No I didn't.  And I don't know why Ian H would assume that I did, given that I specifically said that I did the survey at my father's house, not my own, and the main thrust of my complaint was that there was no facility for entering that location.

Ian H also wrote: "There was an option to submit results for other locations at the very start of the submission process".

No there wasn't.  I just went through the whole thing again to check.  And there still isn't.   So that is just a lie.

If anybody doubts my word on this I suggest you check for yourself.  Here's the link:

www.rspb.org.uk/.../Index.aspx

When I did it originally I didn't want to enter misleading data, so I added a note in the box where you are supposed to type in unusual bird species, giving the postcode where the survey was carried out, and the time of day.  I very much doubt that anybody will ever read it, though.  Why would they?  They have my contact details, and that was the main purpose.

Ian H also wrote: "If you weren't sure, we're always happy to help so you could have contacted us!"

Right.  And no doubt the person I contacted would have failed to grasp what I was saying, and invented some lie to shut me up, just as Ian H has done here.

Ian Goldsworthy wrote: "Your point about time doesn't matter", and then went on to explain that the numbers and types of birds one sees varies according to the time of day.  Er, so time does matter then.  I'm not sure what he's getting at there.

Ian Goldsworthy also wrote: "You've signed up to this because either you love the birds or decided to go along with it, if you're still not happy then unsubscribe to the emails and mailing."

I'm not aware that I've signed up for or subscribed to anything.  I thought I was helping out in a bit of citizen science, which I think is an excellent thing.  But it seems I was sadly mistaken, and I have been taken in by a recruitment drive masquerading as a scientific survey.  There should be a law against it.

To John B, Gwendles, and Northern Lass:

I understand the point you are making, and, yes, bird watching can be very relaxing and enjoyable.  My Dad and I did get some fun out of it, although it was a bit disappointing that we didn't see some of the more interesting species that often turn up in his garden.  So in that sense it wasn't a waste of our time, I agree.

But the Big Garden Birdwatch was sold to me as a serious scientific enterprise, not as a way of relaxing and having fun.

I fully expect to get a recruitment pack from the RSPB through the post shortly.  The RSPB is an organisation that does excellent work (or it used to be at any rate), so I may still join.  But I will look at the literature rather less warmly than I would have done a month ago, because I resent being cheated out of my contact details and lied to on this forum.

"Is the Big Garden Birdwatch a Waste of our time?"

No, the Big Garden Birdwatch is not a waste of the participants time.

It doesn't provide all of the information that could possibly be gathered in a survey of this type, but it does provide data which can provide information on the trends shown by garden birds in the UK. 

It is also important to remember that the BGBW was originally designed to be something for children to do (and remained that way for many years), which is why the methodology has intentionally been kept very simple. There are ways that the type of data collected could be changed to allow more detailed analyses, and to potentially reduce some error margins, but this would require changing the survey (and in many cases making it more complicated).

Grhm said:

If the statisticians have to rely on large scale "averaging out" to compensate for a lack of detailed information then it means the survey isn't properly designed.  Since the RSPB designed and conducted this survey themselves, there is no excuse for that.

I can guarantee that you will not find a single survey which relies on answers (or data) from members of the public that does not rely on "averaging" to compensate for potential inaccuracies. There is an error margin in all scientific data, and you have to accept that there is more potential for error in a bird survey that specifically asks for children, and now also adults who may have little or no birdwatching experience, to take part.

A major role of the survey is promotion of birds (although not necessarily marketing aimed at getting members - even though the RSPB would love everyone who takes part to join). It is largely because the BGBW is the largest public participation survey of its type that it gets national press coverage so easily every year, and this helps to make people aware that some species of garden bird are not fairing well, as well as potentially triggering more interest if they choose to take part (and if more people who do know their birds take part  this will help to reduce statistic inaccuracies that might otherwise be introduced by those who struggle with IDs).

Grhm said:

Ian H also wrote: "There was an option to submit results for other locations at the very start of the submission process".

No there wasn't.  I just went through the whole thing again to check.  And there still isn't.   So that is just a lie.

If anybody doubts my word on this I suggest you check for yourself.  Here's the link:

www.rspb.org.uk/.../Index.aspx

Ian is not lying to you, although potentially the wording on the form could be changed to make things a bit clearer. The form asks if you did the birdwatch in your garden:

If you select "Garden" for where you did the birdwatch, but then select "No, skip garden questions" in the next question, it tells those who are analysing the data that you did the survey in someone else's garden. I do agree that this probably needs to be made clearer, and that it means that the data from your survey could only be used for national data not for regional analyses.

Grhm said:

Ian Goldsworthy wrote: "Your point about time doesn't matter", and then went on to explain that the numbers and types of birds one sees varies according to the time of day.  Er, so time does matter then.  I'm not sure what he's getting at there.

For the purposes of this survey time of day does not matter. If time of day was recorded it could provide additional information when the data was analysed, but this could potentially affect the value of the data collected because participants might feel that they should only take part at the "best" time of day. The fact that all possible data is not collected doesn't affect the value of the data that is collected.

Grhm said:

Ian Goldsworthy also wrote: "You've signed up to this because either you love the birds or decided to go along with it, if you're still not happy then unsubscribe to the emails and mailing."

I'm not aware that I've signed up for or subscribed to anything.  I thought I was helping out in a bit of citizen science, which I think is an excellent thing.  But it seems I was sadly mistaken, and I have been taken in by a recruitment drive masquerading as a scientific survey.  There should be a law against it.

Grhm said:

I fully expect to get a recruitment pack from the RSPB through the post shortly.  The RSPB is an organisation that does excellent work (or it used to be at any rate), so I may still join.  But I will look at the literature rather less warmly than I would have done a month ago, because I resent being cheated out of my contact details and lied to on this forum.

You have not "signed up for" anything, or been cheated out of your contact details. You should also not receive any further information from the RSPB unless you have specifically indicated that you are willing to receive this (either from this survey, or at another time).

At the bottom of the page that collects your contact details there are boxes that are ticked by default indicating that you do not want the RSPB to contact you:

Unless you physically click on these boxes to remove the ticks you should not receive any marketing information (other companies expect you to opt out of receiving mailings etc, rather than expecting you to "opt in" in this way).

EDIT: I tried the form again after clearing cookies etc. and found that the tick boxes weren't ticked as default this time - either way though, there is the option for all participants to opt out of receiving any marketing information.

Grhm said:

But the Big Garden Birdwatch was sold to me as a serious scientific enterprise, not as a way of relaxing and having fun.

The BGBW does three main things:

1). Promotes birds and birdwatching to members of the public.

2). Gathers scientific data which does provide information on trends shown by UK garden birds.

3). Hopefully gives people a relaxing fun hour!

I've always regarded The Birdwatch as a bit of lighthearted fun - I'm sure my GS Woodpecker does as he always hides behind a tree somewhere for the entire day when I sit down to do my bit of studying the garden!

I'm happy for the whole enterprise to continue just as it is, if for no other reason than it might get some more children & young people actually looking hard at birds, and possibly learning to identify them. The young are The Future, after all.