lonestranger

The link below should explain the questions in your title, but your odd ratings don't seem all that odd to me. Your first link shows 4 stars with only 1 rating. I read that as 1 person gave it a 4 star rating, nothing odd there, especially if you rate your own stuff. Your second link shows 2 stars from 3 ratings, not as high a rating as the first link, but I see nothing odd there either. What is it that you are finding odd? https://support.ebird.org/en/support/solutions/articles/48001064392-rating-media#RatingAudio

Hang on a minute here. It was recently stated in another thread that adults are babies. If adults are babies, then they must still be young. If that same adult baby is also a birder, then you'd have a young birder, wouldn't you? Following my logic, I think you're safe to post here, @Bird Brain.

Hey, I resemble that remark...*cries for effect* ?

I often have to look up the bird code, which this time indicates CLNU is Clark's Nutcracker.

I use the copy and paste method myself and have noticed that I sometimes have to wait longer than usual for the thumbnail to appear below the message, but they always appear for me. A common issue that I have seen before is when the original file is moved and/or edited. As an example, if a photo is hosted on flickr, ebird, google, etc., and edited or moved on the host site, it can break any previously posted links to the photo. I'm not saying that's what has happened here, but there is definitely a break in the link somewhere.

Well that's weird, @PaulK, I can see the photo in your screen capture quoted post, but I can't see the photo in the original post. I also just noticed that I couldn't see two of the three photos you recently posted in the ID forum, although others can obviously see them since they've been ID'd. Refreshing my browser didn't do anything on my end so I I'm not sure what's going on. ?

Your photo didn't make the show, PaulK.

This is how you do the crawl when you swim, right? I found out the hard way that you need to tilt your head to the side when you breathe.

I used to love going to see the fireworks when I was a kid, bright lights and loud bangs that scare you half out of your pants...well...lets just say that I haven't been a fan of bright lights or loud noises for a few decades. After dealing with a few dogs that totally freak out during fireworks and hearing more and more horror stories involving wildlife, I can honestly say that I wish they totally banned fireworks. If anyone plans on setting off fireworks, please show respect for the surrounding wildlife and don't cause something like this to happen ever again. https://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/news/conservation/firework-scares-black-skimmers-off-colony-florida/

This might have been a good shot if only... the bird feeder wasn't in the way...the shutter speed was a little faster...the sun was a few hours lower in the sky so the shepherds hook wasn't casting a shadow on the bird's head....

For what it's worth, the throat on this bird looks to be the same shade of (?)yellow(?) as the belly to me. If the (?)yellow(?) colour underneath is being influenced by the leaves, wouldn't it be influencing the throat, chest, and the belly all the same way? If the leaves are influencing the colour of the entire underside of the bird, that would indicate that the throat and belly are similarly coloured, wouldn't it? If there is no influence from the leaves affecting the underside colours, the throat and belly are still the same colour, aren't they? I am in agreement with @flightman, I can't see the leaves being responsible for the (?)yellow(?) throat on this bird. I can't offer an ID, but the (?)yellow(?) throat makes it hard to accept as Great Crested Flycatcher. Perhaps @Tony Leukering could add support to his original ID in light of the conflicting opinions being offered.

I must have misunderstood your previous post, I thought you were inquiring about the beak that insanityslave mentioned, not the bird attached to that beak. Brain fart on my part, sorry.

This is the best I have been able to manage. You don't get too many second chances with these guys.

I hope we can all agree that there is a distinction between "making fun of" someone's spelling, grammar, or punctuation and "having fun with" each other's spelling, grammar or punctuation. While I am guilty of having fun with some of the stuff that ends up in type, it's been for silly comic relief, it's not intended to be rude, insulting or malicious. I think the fun and silly stuff is just that, fun and silly and easily distinguished from the less friendly type of comments that @Aveschapines has been referring to. I hope I am not speaking out of line here, but I think the majority of members welcome fun and friendly interactions, and even some playful teasing now and then. I don't think anyone welcomes any unfriendly teasing, nor should they be subject to such. I'm just emphasizing the difference between having fun and being playful with what is said, and being rude and unfriendly. I think most of us know the difference and behave accordingly. *waits for change from my two cents*

Don't all grosbeaks share a similar looking beak regardless of their plumage markings being streaked or not? Perhaps I am missing something here but I don't understand your connection, @Tony Leukering, between the beak similarity that insanityslave mentioned and the plumage streaking that you mentioned.

How can you be sure that 'expected' wasn't the word he was looking for?

I don't want to sound discouraging, but my gut feeling makes me think you'll be disappointed with the 18-400mm lens. At first you'll probably love the extra 100mm of zoom but after a while I suspect you'll be less and less impressed with the lens and be looking for a better lens down the road. I suspect that the lens will have trouble focusing in less than ideal lighting, especially at maximum zoom. I look at this lens as a stepping stone lens, it'll make you happy for a while, but I think you'll want to move on to the L series lenses sooner than later. What you have to ask yourself is, do you want to buy this lens now AND buy a better lens down the road, or do you want to skip the stepping stone lens and save money in the long run by going straight to the better glass. I wasted a lot of money on stepping stone lenses and don't want to see others make the same mistakes I did. My advice to anyone looking for a new lens, buy quality glass and skip the kit lenses. Starter lenses are just that, great for starting into photography but those lenses probably won't finish the race if you're in it for the long run. Just my 2 cents worth.

You may have captured the nictitating membrane or inner eye lid, in your photo, heme42. It can make a bird's eye colour change or create a hazy look to the eye. That was my first impression, for what it's worth.

Tamron does have lenses for some Sony cameras, but I didn't see anything about this particular model for Sony. That doesn't mean that this model isn't available for Sony, I just couldn't find any info on it. They do have a 150-600mm lens for Sony full frame mirrorless cameras, so they may have more Sony mount lenses. An adapter might be an option for different mount lenses, I have never used adapters, but they're designed to put one brand of lens on a different brand of camera. Some camera/lens combinations are compatible with adapters but some camera/lens combinations just can't be mixed. I'm not sure what different brand lenses your Sony camera might be compatible with, but an adapter MIGHT open up some different options for you.

If you do decide on the Tamron 18-400mm, you might want to save some money and buy used. https://www.keh.com/shop/tamron-18-400mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-hld-b028-ef-mount-lens-for-canon-aps-c-sensor-dslrs-72-1.html That way, if you find out that the lens doesn't quite satisfy you, you won't be hit too hard in the wallet.

Yes, it would be an improvement on your 75-300mm kit lens, it would be comparable to a 18-400mm kit lens. It will give you slightly more reach, 400mm vs 300mm. It will give you a wider field of view on the short end, 18mm vs 75mm. It will give you more flexibility than you currently have, but it's quality is compared to that of longer kit lens. I have no experience with this lens, but what I have read about it so far has mixed reviews. If it's within your budget, I'd recommend Canon's 100-400mm mark 2 lens, even used. https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-l-is-ii-usm-lens-ef-mount-77-with-tripod-foot.html It comes with a higher price tag but I don't think you'll be disappointed in the higher image quality.

I find that there's a lot more gratification in those shots that we work a little harder to get than those shots that we just settle for. Well done. ?

I have only seen one, which is the only reason that I know that some of them do come with a tripod mount. I can tell you that the one I saw was huge and being used for astral viewing, so not sure how practical they'd be for bird watching.

@Aveschapines, After @Kevin realizes that he should have asked to have his last post removed as well as the other posts , could you please remove this post when it becomes irrelevant.

This is not an endorsement because I have never used one, but Black Rapids harnesses, and others, have sliders so you don't have to remove the camera from the harness to use it, which may be of interest to those wanting quick camera access. I actually have a knock off version of this style which works quite well for my 8+ pounds of camera and lens. Mine is a pain to attach securely and I don't put 100% faith in it, my hand is always on the lens just in case, but it definitely makes moving around with the heavy camera easier and the slider allows for instant access when I want it. I wouldn't recommend a knock off brand unless you can inspect it and try it first or you might have regrets about skimping on a few bucks like I did. I have no idea how many binoculars come with a tripod mount, so attaching binoculars may be an issue. Just tossing out another option/style to consider, not promoting any particular brand.