Question about logs

[beanie]

If two people are in the field do they both post a log or should only one post since it was only one specimen that was found?

[spinifer]

If two people are in the field do they both post a log or should only one post since it was only one specimen that was found?

Are you referring to creating a record at http://www.naherp.com?

Each individual herp should be entered only once to avoid redundancy.

[beanie]

Thanks, thats what I needed to know

[Don Becker]

I think anyone who feels like entering a record for the animal should. If only one person enters it, and that person is MIA during a data release, it would be nice to have a second observer who can still choose to release the data.

[herpseeker1978]

I think anyone who feels like entering a record for the animal should. If only one person enters it, and that person is MIA during a data release, it would be nice to have a second observer who can still choose to release the data.

This is why I think there should be a way to have multiple "owners" of a record. I use the database to keep track of what I find and run into problems when on NAFHA field trips. It would be nice to have a dropdown menu with all users that you could choose from in the other observers field so that when I search my records, a find comes up that someone else found, but I was there. Here is an example: Jeremy and Thomas were driving and we were following them to a campsite. Thomas bailed off the road and we saw the kingsnake in the road. All of us were the finders on that snake. I volunteered to enter that into the database because I like to keep track of where I have found things and the database is a great way to do that. Mike was the official data entry guy for the trip, so he entered it as well. I thought I had told him I would get that one, but either I didn't, or he forgot or there were so many records from that trip that it just was destined to be forgotten. Here is my record: http://www.naherp.com/viewrecord.php?r_id=78114 and here is Mike's: http://www.naherp.com/viewrecord.php?r_id=80439 It would be much easier if we could just be able have multiple "owners" of a record.

Josh

[Don Becker]

There is no point in trying to stop multiple people from posting the same animal. What if two people flip the same board two days apart? What if two people are out turtle spotting, and don't realize the other is taking records as well? We are never going to be able to accurately represent how many of something exist somewhere, so it is probably best to focus on what, when, and where.

[beanie]

Its ironic you chimed in Pyson. I asked the question because now that my son downloaded your app he is ready to go out and start logging. I figured only one person should log an animal because otherwise it would not accuratly represent the population in an area. I wasnt sure if there was a way for multiple people to find the same animal.

[spinifer]

There is no point in trying to stop multiple people from posting the same animal. What if two people flip the same board two days apart? What if two people are out turtle spotting, and don't realize the other is taking records as well? We are never going to be able to accurately represent how many of something exist somewhere, so it is probably best to focus on what, when, and where.

These are different scenarios than what the original question posed. I dont see a problem with these being entered. They are of the same animal, but still represent different data.

The problem with the original question is you have 2 people attempting to create the same record of the same data. It is unlikely the 2 records will be created exactly the same, then the question becomes which record is more accurate?

I like Josh's idea of the record creator being able to grant access to other members, which will then allow access as if it is their own record (e.g., edit, vote to release, etc. basically everything except deleting the record).

[Don Becker]

These are different scenarios than what the original question posed. I dont see a problem with these being entered. They are of the same animal, but still represent different data.

The problem with the original question is you have 2 people attempting to create the same record of the same data. It is unlikely the 2 records will be created exactly the same, then the question becomes which record is more accurate?

It doesn't matter what the scenario is. We can't account for all times when a single animal may be recorded more than once, so telling people that two people shouldn't record the same animal seems rather pointless to me. Besides, the two people might record different things. Maybe one person tracks weather, and the other doesn't. Maybe one person wants to enter the weight, and the other doesn't. It really doesn't matter, because we can't even remotely claim that our data is representative of the number of animals present at any location.

[chrish]

It doesn't matter what the scenario is. We can't account for all times when a single animal may be recorded more than once, so telling people that two people shouldn't record the same animal seems rather pointless to me.

I think the idea of minimizing redundancy in the database is important. We can't eliminate it of course, but trying to keep it to a minimum would be beneficial to the dataset as a whole.

I like the idea of cross-listing records to more than one individual contributor. That would solve the problem of one person not being responsive to a data request.
(I guess it might get complicated if two people disagree about what to release or not?).

If you did enter two identical records (as different users), maybe each person could reference the other cross-listed entry in the comments section by its entry number?

i.e. put a comment like "This record represents the same individual as record number xxxxxx recorded by XXXXXXX."

[Don Becker]

So, what do we do when people start saying "Hey! I was out at that same spot 3 days ago! We found the same snake!" and they start cross referencing records, even though the animals represented are not the same at all?

[spinifer]

It doesn't matter what the scenario is. We can't account for all times when a single animal may be recorded more than once, so telling people that two people shouldn't record the same animal seems rather pointless to me. Besides, the two people might record different things. Maybe one person tracks weather, and the other doesn't. Maybe one person wants to enter the weight, and the other doesn't. It really doesn't matter, because we can't even remotely claim that our data is representative of the number of animals present at any location.

Don, you have been adamant that the database is NOT for personal storage. What other purpose would someone enter the same exact record for other than for personal purposes???

Its not about providing accurate counts, its about providing meaningful data. Redundant data is not meaningful, its hollow. It artificially inflates our numbers, and is a red flag when duplicates conflict because the requester will not know which record they should trust. I know we cant stop people from doing it, but that doesnt mean we can't discourage the practice.

[Don Becker]

Don, you have been adamant that the database is NOT for personal storage. What other purpose would someone enter the same exact record for other than for personal purposes???

So that there are two people with the ability to release the data to the people that need it. You never know if one person will go AWOL or have a personal grievance with the person requesting data.

Redundant data is not meaningful, its hollow.

It's not redundant. It shows that the location has been verified by multiple people.

It artificially inflates our numbers

Our numbers seem inflated anyways. We have over 100,000 records, which seems nice, until you look at how few records we have for certain species. It's not about numbers, it's about area. Worry more about how many counties have records for each species rather than how many individual records there are.

and is a red flag when duplicates conflict because the requester will not know which record they should trust.

If there are two records for the same location, they can trust which ever one they want.

[FunkyRes]

My personal opinion is that only one person should enter if both make the same sighting.

The data release issue is an issue, but that can be avoided by setting up your preferences to release data if you don't explicitly refuse it.
That's what I do so that if I bite the dust, all of my data is still available to those that nafha deems worthy of having it.

[Don Becker]

The data release issue is an issue, but that can be avoided by setting up your preferences to release data if you don't explicitly refuse it.

And having both people enter it will increase the odds that one of the people who took the record took the time to change their preference in their profile. The two people may have different opinions on the merit of the release, and it gives both the opportunity to have a say in whether or not the data is released, rather than only going by the opinion of one.