Fair enough, but I would ask some different questions - that perhaps the
scientists using the data might want to comment on.

Do we have too many hotspots in some areas?
Should there be a minimum distance between hotspots?
Should (could?) the eBird app generate warning signals when we wander out
of one hotspot area into another, without starting a new checklist?
Maybe, as proposed, some hotspots could be boosted, but are there also some
that need to be consolidated?
One implication of the current myriad of hotspots is that, instead of more
accurate location-specific data, in many cases we have just the opposite.
How many times do we start an ebird checklist at one location, choosing the
best local hotspot, but then walk/travel, bird, and continue the checklist
well beyond that hotspot area into others, without starting a new
checklist, thus polluting the data for the original location?

In summary, do we need better science in the selection of hotspots?

Bruce Barrett

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:29 AM Joey McCracken <joemccracken3 at gmail.com>
wrote:


> Hi everyone, I've got an idea for those on eBird. What if we were to find

> an eBird Hotspot in the area with not too many checklists or species and

> then for the next week we try and get as many species as possible for that

> location and we will change the location every week. We could really fill

> in some missing data and maybe find some rarities in places that are not

> well birded. It's just an idea for now but if you all want to do it maybe

> we can start at Brierwood Park <https://ebird.org/hotspot/L7009887> just

> south of Alderwood. Happy birding!

> -Joey McCracken

> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20210520/4d3312d9/attachment.html>