> The other issue that I have with electronic forms is that they are not vetted
> by the regional organiser and their committee.
I didn't realise this, but it brings up at least 2 questions that I can see:
(i) If this is true, why are hard copies not being sent to ROs for
verification? Is it an oversight, or deliberate?
(ii) If the ROs are unhappy with the situation, why have they not argued the
point with Atlas HQ? It hardly seems satisfactory if a couple of gripes on this
list are the first most of us have heard of this problem.
> It was a good idea at the start, but I have changed my initial opinion and now
> feel that this method of entry should be discouraged.
I disagree. I submit quite a few records electronically (surveys, incidental
records, ....) that I might be less inclined to do if I had to fill out the
Atlas
'lotto' forms. There are a couple of points to make here as well:
(i) I do not use the Atlas software provided by BA. Instead I use BirdInfo,
which enables me to keep my own records & manipulate them as I wish, as well as
formatting output for the Atlas. I can edit them easily, there's no limit to
the
number of species per survey, etc.
(ii) I think electronic submission makes sense for those who prefer it.
There's
no technical or environmental (paper saving) reason to ditch it. If the main
problems are with the BA software and that ROs are not sent the records for
vetting, then why not fix those 2 problems before baling out on electronic
submission.
That's probably more than $0.02 worth ......
Lawrie
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LAWRIE CONOLE
3 Gezireh Street, Pascoe Vale South
Victoria 3044 AUSTRALIA. 37°44'27"S 144°56'17"E
Phone (03) 9354 2484; Mobile (0419) 588 993
E-mail: <>
My home page: http://www.users.bigpond.com/ocoineoil/
Twitchathon: http://www.users.bigpond.com/ocoineoil/sections/cdph.html
BirdInfo-Users: http://www.egroups.com/group/birdinfo-users/info.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
