| Author |
Messages |
|
Graham Tebb 
Posts:123
 |
| 08/12/2006 8:45 AM |
 Alert
|
Dear all,
I recently upgraded BD to version 3.5 and installed Clements' list, having previously used BD 3.0 with Wells' list. I confess to not being a great fan of Clements' list, for reasons that are not really relevant here, but most of my friends seem to use it so I decided to make the switch. To see what changes resulted to my "life list" when converting to Clements I simply ran off a world checklist with the species I had seen marked. There were several highly surprising results:-
i) Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava) seems completely absent. It is present in numerous country lists (via Checklist Editor) but not in the world list. Does anybody know why?
ii) several species I have seen were not marked. Suspecting that this was due to the way the "things" were being handled I tried to "view/edit sightings" and the birds were there, with their correct scientific names. In some cases they now had tripartite names; is it conceivable that the routine for "ticking" species in checklists cannot deduce that a sighting of, for example, Myiobius barbatus barbatus means that Myiobius barbatus shoud be ticked? If so, this should probably be corrected or those of us who try to enter subspecies in our lists will find ourselves burdened with a huge number of gaps in checklists! (In case it helps, three examples of species I have seen but that were not ticked are Shrike-like Cotinga, Whiskered Flycatcher and Australasian Pipit.)
One new feature with which I have yet to make friends is the way that looking for, say, Yellow Wagtail (in "view/edit sightings") produces absolutely nothing if all the Yellow Wagtail sightings have been entered at subspecific level. This makes it far harder to review sightings of a particular species (I understand the reason, I think, which is that all subspecies are now distinct "things" and the programme does not know that these things are all subspecies of the species been looked for. but it should!)
The obvious way to do what I want is to make use of the taxonomic filter in the "view/edit sightings" window but this is a particularly cumbersome add-on. The features I don't like are:-
i) the various levels no longer have pull-down lists so my brain is exercised more than it likes;
ii) whenever a new filter is entered it is necessary to start from scratch (this really irritates me!) For example, if I've looked through all the various Kestrel sightings and then want to check sightings of Lesser Kestrel I have to go back to telling the filter I'm interested in Animalia-Chordata-Aves-Falconiformes and so on. Unnecessarily tedious, in my view; and
iii) once a choice has been made at a certain level, the number of options at the following levels should be reduced, i.e. it should not be possible to enter non-Falconiformes families once the order Falconiformes has been selected. This is not the case; indeed, it is quite possible to select "Planta" at the kingdom level and then to enter all the other criteria for a particular bird species. The result of the search is zero and the lucky person can start entering the taxonomic filter criteria again.
That's probably enough of this rant to tax (groan) anybody's patience but I've been struggling with the problem for a couple of hours and don't see why I should be the only one to suffer. If anyone (probably you, I'm afraid, Jeff) has any comments - apart from telling me to get out more often - I'd be grateful for a response.
Best wishes,
Graham Tebb |
|
|
|
|
fugle
Posts:72
|
| 08/12/2006 4:39 PM |
Alert
|
I agree with everything Graham Tebb has to say about the taxonomic filter, a very nice feature indeed which I use all the time. In fact I'd been meaning for some days now to post something about it on the "wishlist" forum" but won't do so now since Mr. Tebb has raised the subject here.
The 2 changes I would most like to see implemented are as follows.
1. Have it so that the filter either retains previous settings when re-opened or,alternatively (& perhaps preferably), defaults to user-defined settings (e.g., for people who use the program exclusively for birding, "Animalia, Chordata, Aves . . .").
2. Allow multiple taxa at the end level--e.g., "Animalia, Chordata, Aves, Falconiformes, Falconidae & Accipitridae"). This may be pie-in-the-sky, I don't know, but it would be nice.
Fred Petersen
Reno, Nevada |
|
|
|
|
jjones
Posts:5099
|
| 08/13/2006 8:06 AM |
Alert
|
i) Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava) seems completely absent. It is present in numerous country lists (via Checklist Editor) but not in the world list. Does anybody know why?
The Yellow Wagtail complex is very complicated. Not sure, however, what you mean by completely absent. Please explain.
Also, no birds exist at the World level. If a bird exists at a lower level, then they automatically exist at all upper levels in the ancestry tree. For example, if you have used the checklist editor to register a bird as present at your local county, the even if it is no where else in the checklist data, it will automatically show up for your state, the country and the world; among other locations also in the ancestry tree (e.g. lower 48 states).
ii) several species I have seen were not marked. Suspecting that this was due to the way the "things" were being handled I tried to "view/edit sightings" and the birds were there, with their correct scientific names. In some cases they now had tripartite names; is it conceivable that the routine for "ticking" species in checklists cannot deduce that a sighting of, for example, Myiobius barbatus barbatus means that Myiobius barbatus shoud be ticked? If so, this should probably be corrected or those of us who try to enter subspecies in our lists will find ourselves burdened with a huge number of gaps in checklists! (In case it helps, three examples of species I have seen but that were not ticked are Shrike-like Cotinga, Whiskered Flycatcher and Australasian Pipit.)
Clements is more of a lumper than Wells is. Therefore, what you are seeing happens alot. But, BD does count subspecies as a tick for seeing the species. There are no know bugs in this area. Take a specific example, just one bird/thing, and show me why you think it is not being counted please.
One new feature with which I have yet to make friends is the way that looking for, say, Yellow Wagtail (in "view/edit sightings") produces absolutely nothing if all the Yellow Wagtail sightings have been entered at subspecific level. This makes it far harder to review sightings of a particular species (I understand the reason, I think, which is that all subspecies are now distinct "things" and the programme does not know that these things are all subspecies of the species been looked for. but it should!)
The obvious way to do what I want is to make use of the taxonomic filter in the "view/edit sightings" window but this is a particularly cumbersome add-on. The features I don't like are:-
i) the various levels no longer have pull-down lists so my brain is exercised more than it likes;
Agreed. Here is what I do. I pull up the Rosetta Stone to display the full scientific name of the thing I am interested in. This makes filling out the tax filter easier on my brain.
ii) whenever a new filter is entered it is necessary to start from scratch (this really irritates me!) For example, if I've looked through all the various Kestrel sightings and then want to check sightings of Lesser Kestrel I have to go back to telling the filter I'm interested in Animalia-Chordata-Aves-Falconiformes and so on. Unnecessarily tedious, in my view; and
Agreed. Please add this to the wishlist forum.
iii) once a choice has been made at a certain level, the number of options at the following levels should be reduced, i.e. it should not be possible to enter non-Falconiformes families once the order Falconiformes has been selected. This is not the case; indeed, it is quite possible to select "Planta" at the kingdom level and then to enter all the other criteria for a particular bird species. The result of the search is zero and the lucky person can start entering the taxonomic filter criteria again.
Yes - there are many complications with implementing that. It worked that way in v3, but there were many issues/bugs. So, that is why it works the way it does in 3.5.
The only solice I can provide right now Graham et al, is that when I am working with species/subspecies groups across tax lists, I do
1)use the tax filter and fill it out down to the species level so that I can get all species/subspecies sightings to look at in one view, and
2) I select only the tax list I am interested in working with
I usually have either the Tax Viewer or Rosetta Stone feature open to help me with the full scientific name. I keep it to the right so I can see it all the time. I find that with Smart Search typing, I can fill it out rather quickly, as "A" for kingdom gets "Animalia" right away, TAB, and "C" gets me "Chordata", TAB, and "A" gets me "Aves". So 5 keystrokes quickly fills out Kingdom through Class in less that two seconds.
I do realize that not everyone is as comfortable with the keyboard as I am.
My thought on having the tax filter remember the last settings was that what are the chances that what the user needs next is close to what they entered last? If it is close, then it should remember. I like that idea.
Thanks for all the feedback Graham. I really appreciate it.
Jeff |
|
Birder's Diary Technical Support |
|
|
jjones
Posts:5099
|
| 08/13/2006 8:12 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By fugle on 08/12/2006 4:39 PM
The 2 changes I would most like to see implemented are as follows.
1. Have it so that the filter either retains previous settings when re-opened or,alternatively (& perhaps preferably), defaults to user-defined settings (e.g., for people who use the program exclusively for birding, "Animalia, Chordata, Aves . . .").
2. Allow multiple taxa at the end level--e.g., "Animalia, Chordata, Aves, Falconiformes, Falconidae & Accipitridae"). This may be pie-in-the-sky, I don't know, but it would be nice.
Fred Petersen
Reno, Nevada
Hi Fred,
Please do post #1 above in the Wishlist forum.
As for #2, that does seem to be a difficult thing to implement for me and complicated to relate to the end-user in the User Interface. But, I would just stop at Order Falconiformes in that instance? Sort it taxonomically, and then I could easily see and concentrate on the families I am insterested in in the resultant view?
Jeff |
|
Birder's Diary Technical Support |
|
|
Graham Tebb
Posts:123
|
| 08/13/2006 8:36 AM |
Alert
|
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for the long and detailed answer and sorry that you're in at a weekend dealing with these questions. Perhaps we should both try to get a life?
I've learned two things about sending questions to this forum: i) it's better not to raise too many points at once; and ii) everything should be explained far more clearly. Perhaps I'll do better on both counts in the future but for the present thread I'm afraid we'll have to struggle on on several fronts. So here goes:-
i) Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava) seems completely absent. It is present in numerous country lists (via Checklist Editor) but not in the world list. Does anybody know why?
The Yellow Wagtail complex is very complicated. Not sure, however, what you mean by completely absent. Please explain.
Also, no birds exist at the World level. If a bird exists at a lower level, then they automatically exist at all upper levels in the ancestry tree. For example, if you have used the checklist editor to register a bird as present at your local county, the even if it is no where else in the checklist data, it will automatically show up for your state, the country and the world; among other locations also in the ancestry tree (e.g. lower 48 states).
I was guilty of being too brief in this point. If I produce a world checklist (via Reports) using Clements' list the Motacilla genus looks as follows (the first symbols are for people to laugh at my failure to tick the two tricky members of the genus):
x White Wagtail Motacilla alba
o Mekong Wagtail Motacilla samveasnae
x Black-backed Wagtail Motacilla lugens
x Japanese Wagtail Motacilla grandis
x White-browed Wagtail Motacilla madaraspatensis
x African Pied Wagtail Motacilla aguimp
x Cape Wagtail Motacilla capensis
x Madagascar Wagtail Motacilla flaviventris
x Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola
x Eastern Yellow Wagtail Motacilla tschutschensis
x Gray Wagtail Motacilla cinerea
o Mountain Wagtail Motacilla clara
This is what I mean by "completely absent". Where is simple M. flava?
ii) several species I have seen were not marked. Suspecting that this was due to the way the "things" were being handled I tried to "view/edit sightings" and the birds were there, with their correct scientific names. In some cases they now had tripartite names; is it conceivable that the routine for "ticking" species in checklists cannot deduce that a sighting of, for example, Myiobius barbatus barbatus means that Myiobius barbatus shoud be ticked? If so, this should probably be corrected or those of us who try to enter subspecies in our lists will find ourselves burdened with a huge number of gaps in checklists! (In case it helps, three examples of species I have seen but that were not ticked are Shrike-like Cotinga, Whiskered Flycatcher and Australasian Pipit.)
Clements is more of a lumper than Wells is. Therefore, what you are seeing happens alot. But, BD does count subspecies as a tick for seeing the species. There are no know bugs in this area. Take a specific example, just one bird/thing, and show me why you think it is not being counted please.
<script></script>
Okay, a specific example is the bird I entered using Wells'list as "Andean Laniisoma". When I "view/edit" sightings using Wells' list the bird is clearly there; if I use Clements' list I have to look for "Shrike-like Cotinga" and then I find it happily, with the scientific name "Laniisoma elegans buckleyi". When I produce a world checklist (via "Reports") using Clements' list and with the birds seen marked, however, Shrike-like Cotinga is not ticked.
As I mentioned, I suspected that this might relate to a failure to tick a species when a specific subspecies is entered. Your reply indicates that this is not the case but before I received it I edited all my ostrich, rhea and tinamou sightings to relate each one to the appropriate subspecies (it was raining this morning). Several tinamous are monotypic, of course. When I subsequently produced a world checklist (again, via "Reports") with Clements' list, the only tinamous I had "ticked" were the monotypic species. When I produced a checklist including subspecies, the ticks were in the correct places (at the subspecies level). To take a simple example (in my aim for clarity at the expense of tedium), all my sightings of Ostrich have been in South Africa. The only subspecies to occur here is Struthio camelis australis. When I run a full checklist for the ostriches of the world (with Clements there is only one species) I find that the species itself is not ticked; the only tick to be found is next to the one subspecies that I have seen.
I am happy to believe that the species is being "counted" in the sense that the numbers at the bottom of the screen reflect the fact that I have seen an Ostrich. But it would be extremely helpful if the species could also be ticked off in the checklists produced via the "Reports" feature, which is one I use very frequently (in preparing for trips, for example).
Taxonomic filter: okay, it sounds as though I should be discussing this in the "Wishlist" forum. But my feeling is that it would be veru useful if the filter could remember the settings that were previously used. I'll think some more and post on the forum soon!
Thanks again for all the feedback and sorry to respond at such length.
Best wishes,
Graham |
|
|
|
|
jjones
Posts:5099
|
| 08/13/2006 9:35 AM |
Alert
|
Thanks for the long and detailed answer and sorry that you're in at a weekend dealing with these questions. Perhaps we should both try to get a life?
You've got that part right! 
This is what I mean by "completely absent". Where is simple M. flava?
Ah Thanks! Yes - it is missing. No checklist data for this fella at all. Clements species points to the BD thing World Yellow Wagtail. And you can see if you pull this thing up in the Checklist Editor that there are no locations associated with it. Will fix and post an import file for this thing shortly.
Okay, a specific example is the bird I entered using Wells'list as "Andean Laniisoma". When I "view/edit" sightings using Wells' list the bird is clearly there; if I use Clements' list I have to look for "Shrike-like Cotinga" and then I find it happily, with the scientific name "Laniisoma elegans buckleyi". When I produce a world checklist (via "Reports") using Clements' list and with the birds seen marked, however, Shrike-like Cotinga is not ticked.
It certainly should. Please use the checklist editor and tell me what locations it reports for thing Andean Laniisoma. I suspect none. In which case, you need to import the World Birds Checklist file as per the instructions in the 3.5 ReadMe file. (found in c:\program files\birders diary\$ReadMe35.rtf) I think perhaps this would explain the rest of your situation, e.g. Ostriches et al.
If this is not correct and you have imported that file, then I didn't follow your Ostrich example very well. If that is the case, then do this for me please so we can get to the bottom of this.
1) Create a test observer.
2) Give that new observer a sighting for Struthio camelus australis
3) Run an Africa Checklist (Wow - does that take a long time! 2290 species!)
As you can see - Ostrich is checked off!
This works, I think, as we would all expect it too.
If you have found a different situation, reproduce it as I have, with a test user etc. Then give me the steps to reproduce. This helps to eliminate confusion and makes troubleshooting much easier.
Jeff |
|
Birder's Diary Technical Support |
|
|
nlblock
Posts:214
|
| 08/13/2006 10:20 PM |
Alert
|
As I mentioned, I suspected that this might relate to a failure to tick a species when a specific subspecies is entered. Your reply indicates that this is not the case but before I received it I edited all my ostrich, rhea and tinamou sightings to relate each one to the appropriate subspecies (it was raining this morning). Several tinamous are monotypic, of course. When I subsequently produced a world checklist (again, via "Reports") with Clements' list, the only tinamous I had "ticked" were the monotypic species. When I produced a checklist including subspecies, the ticks were in the correct places (at the subspecies level). To take a simple example (in my aim for clarity at the expense of tedium), all my sightings of Ostrich have been in South Africa. The only subspecies to occur here is Struthio camelis australis. When I run a full checklist for the ostriches of the world (with Clements there is only one species) I find that the species itself is not ticked; the only tick to be found is next to the one subspecies that I have seen.
I am happy to believe that the species is being "counted" in the sense that the numbers at the bottom of the screen reflect the fact that I have seen an Ostrich. But it would be extremely helpful if the species could also be ticked off in the checklists produced via the "Reports" feature, which is one I use very frequently (in preparing for trips, for example).
I've run into the same issue, and I'm still not understanding how to resolve it. In my case, I have all my Yellow-rumped Warbler sightings entered at the subspecific level (Myrtle or Audubon's). However, when I run a report to look for just Yellow-rumped Warbler and not the subspecies, it does not show that I have seen the species. It also is not bold when I enter sightings using the checklist option. How can these subspecies be linked to the whole species for reporting (or other) purposes? I thought when entering data for a subspecies, it automatically linked that data to the whole species, but it doesn't appear to.
Thanks,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Tebb
Posts:123
|
| 08/14/2006 2:18 AM |
Alert
|
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for wasting even more of your weekend to give me so many suggestions - I'm sure we'll crack this one soon.
Okay, a specific example is the bird I entered using Wells'list as "Andean Laniisoma". When I "view/edit" sightings using Wells' list the bird is clearly there; if I use Clements' list I have to look for "Shrike-like Cotinga" and then I find it happily, with the scientific name "Laniisoma elegans buckleyi". When I produce a world checklist (via "Reports") using Clements' list and with the birds seen marked, however, Shrike-like Cotinga is not ticked.
It certainly should. Please use the checklist editor and tell me what locations it reports for thing Andean Laniisoma. I suspect none. In which case, you need to import the World Birds Checklist file as per the instructions in the 3.5 ReadMe file. (found in c:\program files\birders diary\$ReadMe35.rtf) I think perhaps this would explain the rest of your situation, e.g. Ostriches et al.
Andean Laniisoma is shown for the locations Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, which is actually pretty good. And I did import the World Birds Checklist file!
If this is not correct and you have imported that file, then I didn't follow your Ostrich example very well. If that is the case, then do this for me please so we can get to the bottom of this.
1) Create a test observer.
2) Give that new observer a sighting for Struthio camelus australis
3) Run an Africa Checklist (Wow - does that take a long time! 2290 species!)
As you can see - Ostrich is checked off!
This works, I think, as we would all expect it too.
If you have found a different situation, reproduce it as I have, with a test user etc. Then give me the steps to reproduce. This helps to eliminate confusion and makes troubleshooting much easier.
That was a good idea - thanks! Surprisingly, my Ostrich example seems to have been fairly clear and you followed it perfectly. I thus did as you suggested and created a fairly lazy observer named "Test" who went this morning to the Kruger in South Africa and saw an Ostrich (S.c. australis) but nothing else. He ran a checklist (but used the taxonomic filter to limit it to ostriches) and the result was:-
World Checklist
Name Scientific Name
o Ostrich Struthio camelus
i.e. his sighting had not been acknowledged. However, when he ticked the ïnclude subspecies" box he had slightly more joy:-
World Checklist
Name Scientific Name
o Ostrich Struthio camelus
o Ostrich camelus Struthio camelus camelus
o Ostrich syriacus Struthio camelus syriacus
o Ostrich molybdophanes Struthio camelus molybdophanes
o Ostrich massaicus Struthio camelus massaicus
x Ostrich australis Struthio camelus australis
This isn't an isolated example, as shown by my genuine cotinga sightings: the one "species" that I have entered at subspecies level, i.e. Laniisoma elegans buckleyi, is not ticked at the species level.
So what we have is the tedious situation where what you get doesn't seem to be what I get (and Nick's comment on his Yellow-rumped Warbler sightings indicates that the problem is not peculiar to me). I'm running the latest release of the program (3.5.6, I think: I'll let you know if it's not) so that shouldn't be the source of the discrepancy. Any suggestions?
Best wishes,
Graham
|
|
|
|
|
jjones
Posts:5099
|
| 08/14/2006 10:12 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By nlblock on 08/13/2006 10:20 PM
I've run into the same issue, and I'm still not understanding how to resolve it. In my case, I have all my Yellow-rumped Warbler sightings entered at the subspecific level (Myrtle or Audubon's). However, when I run a report to look for just Yellow-rumped Warbler and not the subspecies, it does not show that I have seen the species. It also is not bold when I enter sightings using the checklist option. How can these subspecies be linked to the whole species for reporting (or other) purposes? I thought when entering data for a subspecies, it automatically linked that data to the whole species, but it doesn't appear to.
Hi Nick,
When entering sightings using the checklist option, it will not bold species for which only subspecies have been sighted.
However, for all other situations in BD, subspecies sightings work as expected.
I just created a test user; added a sighting using Clements 2005 for Dendroica coronata coronata.
If I ask for a Checklist report with "Check off things already seen"; and enter my test observer as the observer; and leave "Include Subspeces" unchecked; yellow-rumped warbler (species) will be checked.
But, I must choose a taxonomic list, which defines subspecies for yellow-rumped warbler in this case. ABA and AOU do not ship with subspecies defined. You can easily edit those taxonomic lists and either copy the subspecies over from the Clements list (preferred method) or use the Tax Editor to add them manually. Note: you must make sure that use the correct thing when doing the manual process.
I suspect, Nick, that this may be where you are going wrong. You are using the ABA or AOU tax list without any subspecies definitions. This was discussed at great length in the old forums.
Jeff |
|
Birder's Diary Technical Support |
|
|
jjones
Posts:5099
|
| 08/14/2006 10:38 AM |
Alert
|
| Let's deal with Andean Laniisoma after straightening out Ostrich please.
Posted By Graham Tebb on 08/14/2006 2:18 AM
If this is not correct and you have imported that file, then I didn't follow your Ostrich example very well. If that is the case, then do this for me please so we can get to the bottom of this.
1) Create a test observer.
2) Give that new observer a sighting for Struthio camelus australis
3) Run an Africa Checklist (Wow - does that take a long time! 2290 species!)
As you can see - Ostrich is checked off!
This works, I think, as we would all expect it too.
If you have found a different situation, reproduce it as I have, with a test user etc. Then give me the steps to reproduce. This helps to eliminate confusion and makes troubleshooting much easier.
That was a good idea - thanks! Surprisingly, my Ostrich example seems to have been fairly clear and you followed it perfectly. I thus did as you suggested and created a fairly lazy observer named "Test" who went this morning to the Kruger in South Africa and saw an Ostrich (S.c. australis) but nothing else. He ran a checklist (but used the taxonomic filter to limit it to ostriches) and the result was:- World Checklist
Name Scientific Name
o Ostrich Struthio camelus i.e. his sighting had not been acknowledged. However, when he ticked the ïnclude subspecies" box he had slightly more joy:- World Checklist
Name Scientific Name
o Ostrich Struthio camelus
o Ostrich camelus Struthio camelus camelus
o Ostrich syriacus Struthio camelus syriacus
o Ostrich molybdophanes Struthio camelus molybdophanes
o Ostrich massaicus Struthio camelus massaicus
x Ostrich australis Struthio camelus australis This isn't an isolated example, as shown by my genuine cotinga sightings: the one "species" that I have entered at subspecies level, i.e. Laniisoma elegans buckleyi, is not ticked at the species level. So what we have is the tedious situation where what you get doesn't seem to be what I get (and Nick's comment on his Yellow-rumped Warbler sightings indicates that the problem is not peculiar to me). I'm running the latest release of the program (3.5.6, I think: I'll let you know if it's not) so that shouldn't be the source of the discrepancy. Any suggestions?
Hi Graham,
Please do attach screen shots as I have.
Show me all sightings for your test user, using only Clements 2005 tax list and no filters.
Then show me a screen capture of your report setup as I have.
This must work, we just have to figure out what you are doing differently.
Thanks,
Jeff
|
|
Birder's Diary Technical Support |
|
|
Graham Tebb
Posts:123
|
| 08/14/2006 11:33 AM |
Alert
|
Dear Jeff,
So, we're actually both online at the same time, for a change. I'm sure I'm doing something daft but for the life of me can't figure out what it might be. So here goes with my lazy observer whose sightings look as follows (Clements 2005, no filter):
He tries to run an Africa checklist (for ostriches only) by means of the following filter:
and when he does so he is sad to see the results of his efforts:
If, however, he elects to view the checklist with all suspecies listed by means of the following filter:
he is relieved to see that his extensive fieldwork was not wasted:
as he has successfully ticked one of the Ostrich subspecies (but not the species itself, which is puzzling).
These screenshots look different from yours but I really can't see what I'm doing wrong. Please put me out of my misery!
Thanks again and best wishes from Vienna,
Graham |
|
|
|
|
jjones
Posts:5099
|
| 08/14/2006 12:57 PM |
Alert
|
Hi Graham,
I am embarrassed.  You followed my first set of instructions for including pictures/screenshots in your post. They were wrong. I have updated the instructions on the forum instructions page. The Insert Image toolbar option does not work as expected.
On the other hand, I love your narrative for your lazy birder. 
Please pardon my errors and post screen images again using the Message Attachments feature at the bottom of the advanced editor.
Thanks!
Jeff |
|
Birder's Diary Technical Support |
|
|
Graham Tebb
Posts:123
|
| 08/15/2006 12:30 AM |
Alert
|
Dear Jeff,
Now I'm really puzzled. The way I inserted the screen captures was by means of the icon just below the font name at the top of the editor (the icon is called "Insert Image"). Your instructions state:
While in the Advanced editor, you can use any of the 3 Message Attachments available to you below the editor. This will upload files from your computer and if they are picture files, display them at the end of your post.
but I'm not sure what you mean by this. In any case, when I view my previous post the screen captures are there in all their glory. What should I be doing differently?
Out of interest, did you manage to get onto Nick's system? It sounds as though he and I are having the same problem. Having you heard from anybody else out there who enters sightings at the subspecific level and checks whether they are reflected in their lists?
Don't worry - we"ll get there!
Best wishes,
Graham |
|
|
|
|
jjones
Posts:5099
|
| 08/15/2006 7:11 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Graham Tebb on 08/15/2006 12:30 AM Now I'm really puzzled. The way I inserted the screen captures was by means of the icon just below the font name at the top of the editor (the icon is called "Insert Image"). Your instructions state:
While in the Advanced editor, you can use any of the 3 Message Attachments available to you below the editor. This will upload files from your computer and if they are picture files, display them at the end of your post.
but I'm not sure what you mean by this. In any case, when I view my previous post the screen captures are there in all their glory. What should I be doing differently?
Out of interest, did you manage to get onto Nick's system? It sounds as though he and I are having the same problem. Having you heard from anybody else out there who enters sightings at the subspecific level and checks whether they are reflected in their lists?
By using the Insert Image button in the editor toolbar, only you can see your images you have inserted. Don't use that. I will be removing that button shortly.
Use the Message Attachments area below the editor. This will attach pictures at the bottom of your post. See below. Remember this is not available with the Quick Reply option.
I haven't heard back from Nick yet. But will update the post when I do get onto his system and figure it out.
Yes - many folks, including myself, enter sightings at the subspecies level.
Jeff |
|
Birder's Diary Technical Support |
|
|
cjwalton
Posts:319
|
| 08/15/2006 7:19 AM |
Alert
|
Jeff, see my post in the beta section. The message attachment window does not appear in the BD forum so it is not possible to make attachments.
John W
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Tebb
Posts:123
|
| 08/15/2006 7:52 AM |
Alert
|
Hi Jeff,
I think John W's comment explains my problem. I really can't see the "Message Attachment" section anywhere.
I'm almost tempted to send you the attachments to your e-mail address. I think we should continue discussing the problem on the public forum as I can't believe Nick and I are the only ones with the "subspecies" problem but it seems that I can't add the attachments to the forum message in an acceptable way.
If I send them to you, could you upload them for me?
Best wishes,
Graham |
|
|
|
|
|