Melierax

Does anybody else here play any instruments? I play piano and I'm currently working on the longest piece I've ever done by far:

I agree with the above responses. I would like to add to Aveschapines' response and say that I think this is a fad. Being a 16 year old birder who I would say is well versed in modern culture, this idea is not going to take off. You say this should appeal to young people who have their faces stuck in their phones - I say quite the opposite. I am part of the online teen culture of birding and they would not like this idea, even new birders. They prefer online websites like birds of north america, all about birds, and now eBird (new explore species feature), even when in the field. When the internet is out or people want better comparisons, they use a normal field guide and at that point it would be pointless to have a smaller guide. (It's pretty much a miniature meme that young birders don't like iBird (mainly because of the illustrations)). In an online world where the culture can change within a month, week, even a day, this will fall by the wayside as just another fad. People like simple, ordinary, and practical. I think someone might buy it just for the idea, but then realize that it's hard to use in the field and, as Aves said, does not withstand the heavy use that comes with birding. At first I thought you posted this to see what we thought about the idea in order to decide whether or not this should be put into production. But it seems you showed up with preconceived notions as to what the response was going to be, and now you're disappointed it's not what you had hoped. Since birders like the people on this forum are your audience, I suggest you take into account their responses instead of throwing them aside simply because they don't look positively on the idea. True, we're just a small sample of people, but we essentially represent your audience. Not trying to be rude, but I think you're just looking for affirmation and anything other than that is just something to be argued away without full consideration. But it's not your opinion that matters - it's the consumers'. If people see a product like this on the market, this is the response people will give. Since the consumers on this website are obviously looking on this idea negatively, I think you should reconsider putting this into production unless you want to risk it on the few people who buy it once and never recommend it to anyone else. You say that other people have already made up their minds, and that if people are worried about a negative response, they should "simply not respond". So far you've posted already having made up your mind (complete with articles and other facts that argue your idea), and with all the negative responses you've replied with "this may not be the best place to ask my question", indicating you're choosing ignoring the opinions simply because they don't agree with yours. But it doesn't matter how stupid the consumers' opinion is - it's the opinion that dictates whether or not this will be a success. You can't change the minds of your entire audience unless you have a highly skilled advertisement company and a lot of money, at which point it might have been better to simply forget about the idea. If you don't believe me, I can post this topic to all 60 or so young birders, many of them new, on discord and ask their opinion. I'd be glad to and it'd hopefully be good info for you. I wish you the best of luck.

I don't care for this idea. I find field guides extremely useful especially in comparing two bird species so I'm not against paper books. Firstly: I have tons of bird books including Sibley, Stokes, National Geographic, and even some vintage Peterson's and all of them have better illustrations that iBird(which I assume is the idea for this), no offense. Secondly: I also have several smaller pocket-sized guides and they sit on the shelf and I never use them - particularly because it's very easy to bring a regional Sibley that's infinitely better than a tiny pocket book. Also, I feel like most people who bird wear some sort of backpack or something else that holds essentials like a water bottle, a camera, lenses, etc., maybe a snack, in which they could place a Sibley without much discomfort (we're already dealing with discomfort with binoculars and everything else, what's a relatively lightweight field guide gonna do?). I get the idea, but it's just not for me. I'd rather bring a high quality Sibley's.

Is the third one a Broad-winged Hawk? I'm not comfortable in eastern raptor identification but don't they have a dark bib and sides and whitish wings?

A couple more: Brown Pelican Bald Eagle

Black Phoebe Pygmy Nuthatch

House Finch and I believe an immature Brewer's Blackbird.

I think it's a Rock Wren but the bill is really throwing me off...

That's wonderful! Really beautiful ? Here's a pic I got of a Pine Siskin (I was feeding him, this is right after I ran out of seed)

Agreed.

Was thinking Brewer's in addition to Vesper but then I noticed the stripes on the sides. Agreed with Vesper.

Agreed with domestic mallard.

Why not Western on the Kingbird? The tail appears to have white outer tail stripes whereas Cassin's have a white tail tip which I don't see here. I agree with the rest. EDIT: I'm late I know

Yeah, agreed - none of those other options work. Townsend's Solitaires are long and skinny and light gray with strong white spectacles, not to mention peachy colored patches on the wings. Thrushes are big-bellied birds with longer skinnier beaks. Varied Thrushes are bright orange with a strong supercilium. Pipits are much lighter than this and have strong stripes down the front. (Also their posture is kind of blackbird-like.) Just looking at this guy, make sure you keep in mind all of the characteristics. Measure the beak relative to head width. This guy definitely has that thick beak of a finch. Secondly, its shape is that of a finch. Tail length, body length, and the rest of the overall proportions look great (looks very "small and chubby"). Lastly, the coloration - very dark all over with distinctive rosy on the shoulders and belly. As far as females/immature, most of the time females or immature birds (fancy term for young) are blotchier and not as distinct as the adult males. Also, immature birds generally show a yellow gape which this guy obviously doesn't have. Just a photo of Rosy-Finches... notice how the one towards the front has his neck extended whereas the one in the middle is squashed down. Your bird is well within the range of a small and chubby finch to an extended finch. I hope this helps you and the "bird person"!

Looks like an American Goldfinch to me. EDIT: Sniped! Agreed with akiley.

But of course I'm no expert on these - anyone else who knows better should definitely pitch in.

Hmm, I'm not seeing the last two as Greaters. The rest look like Lessers. I like to think of Greaters as having a large bill with a really rounded head, whereas Lessers almost look like Ring-necked Ducks. I can maybe see the one in the middle in the third photo but I can't be certain. Here are two photos that compare them well:

I agree. American Pipits come in a few different subspecies I believe but I haven't really paid attention to that. Note that Sage Sparrows have short stubby sparrow beaks as well as an overall rounder, stubbier shape - whereas this Pipit has a long, strutting shape and a long thin beak. Also, the breast markings are extensive and across the chest unlike Sage Sparrow.

From Friday but I just uploaded it. Lifer Barred Owl:

Right. As far as other ones go, I've seen people use clyp.it.

Most people use other sites like Flickr to upload recordings. I use my personal website.

Looks great but... I don't think we want nudity here

Looks like it!

Black-capped Donacobius (the colored pencils didn't work out so I went over it again with markers)

Hmm - I'm having a hard time making this a Sharpie... It looks blocky and iirc the breast pattern looks better for Coop. I agree that this isn't the best photo for ID though. I agree those field marks aren't reliable and the tail is in the shadows.