Like the Shelduck, these do not come very close to the shore, but the distinctive gold crest make them stand out.
No interactions present.
Robert, I think you have made an error in adding your ID, best correct it.
Chris Brooks - www.dragonfly-images.co.uk
My Flickr site - www.flickr.com/photos/ceb1298
I thought leaving these errors was part of iSpot, allowing to see how the correct ID emerges.
In this case though, and obviously, an unintended error. Everyone will see that, unlike in mine!
Hi, I would agree with you that if the Shelduck ID was a genuine attempt at an ID then it should be corrected but in this case I know Robert would know these were Wigeon as in the title, hence my attempt to get him to correct his mistake.
The problem with comments is that they are not visible unless you scroll down. Anyway no harm done.
Thanks Chris and others as it was an unintended error.
Do you think that I should now alter the ID, given that it was unintended?
I think you should leave it. With your four 'stars' and these comments, those who come next will feel more comfortable with their mistakes.
Like Chris I would have given you the chance to correct it yourself. The point made by dejayM about errors works normally if the observer is unsure or in error but in this case it was clearly an entry mistake. However now the ID has been given by camelbirder (who probably didn't scroll down to see the comments) and the observation has this history it might cause confusion to update the ID.
Certificate in Contemporary Science (Open)
Robert could ADD a pic of the Shelduck (if he has one).
This would 'force' viewers to look at Notes.
I am pretty new here but there is an air of competiveness which is gentle and non harming, so I think the corrected ID by Derek (not me!)was fair.
It might be onerous for us all to contact posters who make errors, suggesting they correct them and it would be defeating.
See my own soloution here - though the case is NOT the same
A very easy mistake to make. In fact, I saw widgeon in the photo, read shelduck in the comment and went on to tick the agreement for shelduck. I then had to remove it.
I thought that iSpot would not let you edit the original ID submitted so if you wish to correct something you have to do it by using the "add a revised identification" button. This permits anyone, including the original submitter, to correct an error (whether in this case because of inadvertently typing the wrong name or because the specimen has actually been wrongly identified) but leaves a trail so that people can learn from the mistakes that can be made. For this reason I would say it is good practice for anyone adding a revision to add a comment on why the revised ID is more likely than the original one.
It is good to see a debate about IDs and mistakes [even unintentional ones] and the crux is I should have paid better attention to what I was doing. I was looking at my extension monitor that was showing the Shelduck that I had already posted and I lost my concentration. If I make a mistake like this and someone corrects it, fair enough and I learn to concentrate better.
I could also add another photograph of a Wigeon and put the correct ID and I had already posted a Shelduck two spots before the mistaken Wigeon ID.
Just leave it Robert, move on, make more mistakes, promote discussion.
We all know how you feel, those of us who know!
Lat/Lng: 50.72853, -1.99651
OS grid ref: SZ003921