Review Bombing

[DLecy]

7 minutes ago, IKLland said:

Four? It’s a three. The shot is really cool, showing good habitat. The problem is the bird is tiny, which lowers a star. Also, the bird doesn’t have much feather detail. I love landscape shots like this, but unless truly amazing, I give them not a five. 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/392192341

I agree that this is not a four.

[Charlie Spencer]

9 hours ago, AlexHenry said:

you’re review bombing because you’re jealous

I'm not going down that road, but this discussion did start out focusing on underrated photos.  That's how I understood the 'Bombing' part of the original title.  It's shifted to targeting photos the posters feel are overrated.

[Charlie Spencer]

8 hours ago, DLecy said:

It's a fairly easy fix with a quick bit of post-processing

That's easy for you to say!  

Again, let's keep in mind that people add photos to their checklists for multiple reasons. Uploading to Macaulay is automatic and cannot be blocked by the lister.  This results in photos in Mac that people don't necessarily intend for public use, viewing, or rating.  I've attached multiple crummy photos to document a rarity or lifer that, given the choice, wouldn't be in Mac at all.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Charlie Spencer

[DLecy]

57 minutes ago, Charlie Spencer said:

I've attached multiple crummy photos to document a rarity or lifer that, given the choice, wouldn't be in Mac at all.

I have too. My Sinaloa Wren photo from SE Arizona is perhaps the absolute worst SIWR photo in all of eBird/ML. No joke. It was simply used to document the bird's diagnostic facial pattern. However, this doesn't preclude a photo from being critiqued in the form of ratings, or even better yet, online forums such as this one. 😁 The price of admission, so to speak.

59 minutes ago, Charlie Spencer said:

This results in photos in Mac that people don't necessarily intend for public use, viewing, or rating.  

My understanding differs somewhat from this statement. Isn't that (public data) the entire purpose eBird and of the photos which are used in eBird and thus ML? I don't personally know anyone who submits checklists, photos, or sounds, to eBird under the premise that what they post is not intended for public viewing/output/data/etc.

[Charlie Spencer]

34 minutes ago, DLecy said:

However, this doesn't preclude a photo from being critiqued in the form of ratings, or even better yet, online forums such as this one.

My apologies, I didn't make my point clear.  I was addressing post-processing.

If someone appends a photo but doesn't care what ratings it gets, he or she isn't going to adjust the overexposed whites / underexposed blacks or do anything else in post. Heck, it's only recently that I've begun just cropping before I attach, and that's still all I do.

If seeing a photo with these characteristics uncorrected is a pet peeve, assuming the photographer cares about them is guaranteed to trigger it. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Charlie Spencer

[Spyonabird]

There are many times that I add a photo that is terrible.  see link below.  The difference is that I don't care if someone "likes" it or not.  This one was to document the number of birds; to justify my count of 250 Cedar Waxwings.  Yes, I had better pictures but they would not have told the whole story.  My understanding is that ebird/MC library is for citizen science documentation  and not to show off your best photos.  If you have nice pics - great.  My best photos are elsewhere because I like to shoot more "artsy" pics that may or may  not be good for ID.

 https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/236264831

just my  two pennies...

[DLecy]

49 minutes ago, Charlie Spencer said:

If seeing a photo with these characteristics uncorrected is a pet peeve, assuming the photographer cares about them is guaranteed to trigger it. 

I definitely don’t assume most, if not nearly all, photographers care about this. With 32.2 million images and counting on eBird, the sheer number of poor, unedited photos which are overexposed/underexposed/blurry/uncropped, is vast. It’s a pet peeve of mine no doubt, but surely not one I’m losing any sleep over. I know what I’m getting into when I look at pics in the eBird/ML database.

I will say, IMO, as digital photography becomes more accessible, cheaper, and the interest in editing photos continues to swell, I do believe the number of high quality pictures in the database will only continue to grow, and rapidly at that. Case in point, simply take a look at the small sample size of users on this forum and how many have increased their skills and abilities with bird photography in a fairly short amount of time. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by DLecy

[DLecy]

36 minutes ago, Spyonabird said:

My understanding is that ebird/MC library is for citizen science documentation  and not to show off your best photos.  If you have nice pics - great. 

Different users find different purposes for eBird. With over 60 million submissions, 32 million pics, and over 700,000 users, it’s tough to make a generalized statement such as this. 

The stated purpose of eBird is to document bird distribution, abundance, habitat use, and trends. So yes, clearly not a photography site first and foremost, but there is a large, and increasing presence of bird photographs on eBird (i.e. top photos on the homepage as one example). The majority of people do not use eBird to showcase their best photos, but there are definitely people who use it for that exact purpose/feature.

[Trevor L.]

13 hours ago, IKLland said:

Four? It’s a three. The shot is really cool, showing good habitat. The problem is the bird is tiny, which lowers a star. Also, the bird doesn’t have much feather detail. I love landscape shots like this, but unless truly amazing, I give them not a five. 
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/392192341

I saw that one and it kinda upset me.

[PaulK]

For what it's worth, I think (would guess?) a significant proportion of ratings are generated from the photo quiz, where people are likely responding quickly based on initial impression to move on to the next photo rather than based on any stringent rubric. I'd be curious to know if there's any statistical pattern of more confusing birds having lower aggregate ratings due to people rating when annoyed they got the ID wrong.

[PaulK]

I also think that there's scientific potential from having unedited photos uploaded. (Mine are usually edited, but in Instagram which also worsens them in other ways.) With such a large dataset there could be interesting studies of e.g. iridescence based on angle, where colour correction would potentially detract from the experiment. I think the instructions on the ID forum here asks people to upload unedited photos to avoid inadvertent loss of detail.

[Charlie Spencer]

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/393546961

😂

[PaulK]

4 minutes ago, Charlie Spencer said:

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/393546961

😂

Nice photo!
 

On 12/1/2021 at 9:49 PM, PaulK said:

I think (would guess?) a significant proportion of ratings are generated from the photo quiz

Case in point?

[Charlie Spencer]

11 minutes ago, PaulK said:

Nice photo!

That wouldn't be five stars if it was an Ivory-billed in Times Square.  I see some others have begun knocking it down where it belongs.  I gave it the two it deserves.  It's identifiable and that's about it.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Charlie Spencer

[PaulK]

23 minutes ago, Charlie Spencer said:

That wouldn't be five stars if it was an Ivory-billed in Times Square.  I see some others have begun knocking it down where it belongs.  I gave it the two it deserves.  It's identifiable and that's about it.

Personally I don't care if photos are "overrated" in Macaulay. I get irked when I post an ID photo like that with the comment "bad photos to justify identity" and people take the time to rate it a 1 or 2. I *know* it's a bad photo, you don't have to tell me!

[Charlie Spencer]

21 minutes ago, PaulK said:

Personally I don't care if photos are "overrated" in Macaulay. I get irked when I post an ID photo like that with the comment "bad photos to justify identity" and people take the time to rate it a 1 or 2. I *know* it's a bad photo, you don't have to tell me!

I don't much care how mine are rated either.  In this case, it's cropped from that collection of 'Drained Farm Pond' shots I've been cleaning up from last fall.  I was reviewing the media for that checklist and noticed that someone apparently needs an eye appointment.  

I don't get irked if they're badly rated in eBird / Mac.  I do get peeved when I post one here and get comments about under / over exposed, ISO too low / high, out of focus, etc.  "Duh.  The bad ones make it challenging; I take 'em that way to help y'all improve your ID skills.  Obviously I didn't post the good ones because I'm under contract to NatGeo."  Sheesh.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Charlie Spencer

[BirdNrd]

Is this photo a 4 or 5? Someone just rated this a 1

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/394151651

Same as this one. 4 or 5?

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/394151641

[Charlie Spencer]

I give the first one a four, the second one a three since I can't see the whole bird. 

@IKLland is going to knock off at least one point on each for that blotchy sharpening, or whatever is going on with the feathers.  I'd like to have seen the original, unedited images.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Charlie Spencer

[BirdNrd]

6 minutes ago, Charlie Spencer said:

@IKLland is going to knock off at least one point on each for that blotchy sharpening, or whatever is going on with the feathers.  I'd like to have seen the original, unedited images.

Those were the unedited versions.

[PaulK]

Don't know what it is but GCSP are really tough to get a good picture of. Always ends up noisy. Don't know how to rate well but those are better than any I've ever got so I'd call them 5s.

[Charlie Spencer]

Interesting.  I wonder what caused that effect?

[IKLland]

46 minutes ago, BirdNrd said:

Is this photo a 4 or 5? Someone just rated this a 1

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/394151651

Same as this one. 4 or 5?

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/394151641

First is a four, second is a three. 

37 minutes ago, Charlie Spencer said:

I give the first one a four, the second one a three since I can't see the whole bird. 

@IKLland is going to knock off at least one point on each for that blotchy sharpening, or whatever is going on with the feathers.  I'd like to have seen the original, unedited images.

Agreed. That’s really weird feather detail. It’s Alamo’s to like the feathers are out of place. 

31 minutes ago, BirdNrd said:

Those were the unedited versions.

Well, I can’t think of what could’ve caused it. Did you change your settings to add any sharpening once you take the image? If so, don’t.

[BirdNrd]

1 hour ago, IKLland said:

First is a four, second is a three. 

Agreed. That’s really weird feather detail. It’s Alamo’s to like the feathers are out of place. 

Well, I can’t think of what could’ve caused it. Did you change your settings to add any sharpening once you take the image? If so, don’t.

No I didn’t. Probably just a fluke.

[Charlie Spencer]

14 hours ago, IKLland said:

It’s Alamo’s to like the feathers are out of place.

I almost like the Alamo.

[Kevin]

18 hours ago, BirdNrd said:

Is this photo a 4 or 5? Someone just rated this a 1

Possibly not, what I think more likely is that some people have been rating it five, and some four, and finely there where enough fours for drop it down.