Ornithology B/C

[Jim_R]

Discussion for Ornithology B/C.

[Deeisenberg]

WIth any luck they will reinstitue binders for nature ID. If they do not I will be both suprised, and extremely annoyed.

[JonnyC]

I've only done Amph and rep. and I did it without a binder. I don't know how I feel about using binders. Should be interesting to see what the list is like though.

[soobsession]

it would be extremely helpful to have a binder...the list seems to be really long (longer than my fossils list at least)...the list for feathered frenzy from a while ago anyways

my binder didnt really help for fossils...maybe thats just because the questions were so easy it was really not needed...

[Deeisenberg]

A well made binder makes the difference between top 10 at nationals, and top 30.

If you make a very good binder, it is without a doubt your greatest asset on well made tests. Granted it is most certainly less useful on more poorly made, or easier tests. I find that a good rule of thumb is spend at least as much time making your binder as you do studying for the event (though you could consider binder making studying).

You must also realize that the removal of a binder this past year in Herpetology is, at least as far as I know, unprecedented. I have been doing nature ID events for 6 years, and that had never happened. Granted you could, with great modifications, make a modified field guide nearly as good as a binder. However do to constraints in space and page size, it is far more difficult to do to the same caliber as an excellent binder and nearly impossible to organize it as well.

As for the list, it will almost certainly be very similar to the various lists from former years that are up on several places on the web.

[Celeste]

I think that bringing back the binders would be great to do. Granted, this is only my second year in SciO, so I never got the chance to use a binder on anything before herpetology. I know that just being allowed a field guide was nice because you didn't have to go to the trouble to make a binder, but sometimes you didn't have enough information. Another problem i found with the field guide was that the rules for putting things in it were kind of vague. Depending on how you thought about the rules, you could see totally different limits on what you could add to your guide. I think that if for some reason they don't go back to the binder, they should make the field guide rules more clear.

[Deeisenberg]

I know that just being allowed a field guide was nice because you didn't have to go to the trouble to make a binder, but sometimes you didn't have enough information. Another problem i found with the field guide was that the rules for putting things in it were kind of vague. Depending on how you thought about the rules, you could see totally different limits on what you could add to your guide. I think that if for some reason they don't go back to the binder, they should make the field guide rules more clear.

I agree with everything you said. While I agree with you, I would just like to use something you said to build upon my point. Using a field guide and being able to edit it (Though I too was annoyed at the vagueness of the rules, however submitted clarifications, you always should if something isn't clear.) really didn't encourage people to put as much effort into improving their resources as a binder. Allowing binders encourages people to work on their binders, and generally (Though not always, especially for exceptionally competitive teams of individuals.), it results in a better end product. While doing the greater amount of work which making a binder entails, you usually learn far more from it than you would have modifying a field guide. I just disagree with the policy on, as well as other points I've mentioned, based on the fact that it, from what I have observed and predicted (short term observations though they may be) has seemed to lead people to put slightly less work into the event(s). Really I actually would say the same thing about binder and a field guide, however the field guide is alright as an extra, because it does give a greater chance to those teams that don't spend quite as much time, while still giving an advantage to those who took the time to make a good binder. A lot of that is also because if you make a good binder, it really should contain all of the useful information from any and all field guides you may have otherwise used.

[robotman]

also i feel that field makes most people lazy(not trying to insult people) and it makes it more worthwhile to make a binder because
A.you learn a lot more
B. it give everyone exactly what they want so they know where everything is .
C. separates the teams from the ones that are just there and the ones that actually want to try to make it to NAts

[sewforlife]

Regardless if we need a binder this year, I'm pretty sure I'm going to make one with general to specific info so that I can study, and if we only can use a field guide, then I would stuff some info into it, like what I did with A+R last year

[crabnebula143]

Any idea when the official ornithology list comes out? Thanks.