Well it's almost over but the fat lady hasn't sung her last song yet. Simon Chadwick is facing a last minute challenge by Matthew Bruce - who even after increasing his target is still managing a remarkable 23 species over his revised target.
For most of us (well certainly me) this hasn't been about coming first it's been about setting personal goals and beating them.
I've decided to leave the scoring system as it is, but I'd be interested on others views so that a fairer system can be implemented for next January's challenge.
Back tomorrow for the exciting conclusion.
Mark
Mark,
ReplyDeleteThe 'unfairness' lies in the predicted scores. If you didn't patch much in the past and have a poor understanding of what's actually there, you will set your target low and easily exceed it if you put some effort in.
If you have a poor patch then every species over your target is worth more % wise.
If you have a good patch and a high predicted total then it will be difficult to exceed it by much - if at all - and any species exceeding the total are not worth much in terms of % and their worth decreases the higher your score.
It could always be non-competitive - and I imagine this would also reduce the amount of birds counted on less than great views that may end up in the record books.
23 species over target says your target was very ill-judged
For my own amusement I thought I would compare some of the targets set with data available on BirdTrack. Using the "Species by location" option from the "Maps and Reports" menu, you have the option to put in a grid reference and then see a list of all species reported within 2km of that location in January of any year. That was one of the ways I chose my target. Anyway, my geography is not too good, so picking on a few places I do know I compared some targets with BirdTrack as follows...
ReplyDeleteLocation County Target Birdtrack
OVER CAMBRIDGESHIRE 100 133
SANDY BEDFORDSHIRE 95 120
MILTON KEYNES BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 89 88
FLAMBOROUGH EAST YORKSHIRE 88 97
BLACKPOOL LANCASHIRE 85 86
THRYBERGH SOUTH YORKS 82 96
NORWICH NORFOLK 81 104
THETFORD NORFOLK 80 127
SHEFFIELD SOUTH YORKS 75 75
UNST SHETLAND 48 3
Well, I know some of the original targets may have been revised, but I think it would be interesting to see what percentage scores people manage if they compare their efforts with data on BirdTrack instead of their targets. I know some people also walked a lot further than the 2km buffer used here. Lastly as shown by Shetland above, some places just aren't well enough represented on Birdtrack. However, maybe next year we shouldn't be allowed a target less than the total from Birdtrack?