Condor Watch Talk

Post any inaccurate Tag Bios here -=-

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    If you are sure you have entered the correct and complete tag information on a Condor but the bio returns a number that is totally wrong. Please post the information here along with a link to the photo so we can fix the problem.

    If you find a bio that says the Condor has died, but the date of the photo was clearly taken after that (our beloved "zombie birds"!) with the all the tag info

    How to check BIOS:

    First - note the date the photo was taken. That dark page that pops up with the data you recorded obscures the info most of the time, especially if it's red date/time stamp on the photo.

    When you're done with your photo and hit "all animals marked" you will see the "bio" button under the condors you have tagged. (The "hundred" is determined by the tag color, so if you tagged Yellow 6 for example, it will be Bio 206 Dots and underlines add other numbers in front of the tags.)

    Click BIO and be nosy! See details of their thrilling sex lives! Expose how many mates they have had! See the exotic local they were born in! Uncover deep family secrets!

    To understand how the number system works on the tags and more help with colors and numbers, see our astoundingly awesome Field Guide

    Thank you!

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    **

    Known Bio 'Inaccuracies' - check before you post.

    **
    Not a Zombie - White 78 - may pull up the Bio for a bird that died in 2006 but is very much alive in photos from 2010 The tag was passed on the the "new" condor but only one Bio can be on Zooniverse and both 78s might be in photos. The "old" condor's bio is the one you will see. When your data is sent in, the correct condor is registered, however, so fear not.

    Black 35 will give the Bio for [Black 35] 3-dots. This is the same bird (335) - from 2006-2009 his tag had no dots on it.

    Black 40 and Black 40 3-dots are the same bird. (340)

    Blue 70 and Black 70 3-dots are the same bird and will return the bio for 370 . The tag was changed and you might see it wearing either of these tags.

    Posted

  • Veegee by Veegee

    I check the bios on every condor, find it interesting to see how old some are, a few are pretty old, ie
    born 1990's. Will do if I see anymore Zombie Condors!

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd

    Hi stonepenny,
    I just learned today that the URL at the top of the page when you click Yes for "Would you like to discuss this image?" will not allow the scientists to take a close look at the original image.
    What you do, is right-click the image on that discussion page, and select Copy Image Location, and then paste that URL in a post on this page. The URL will be much longer that the discussion page URL (see the URL in my post above) and will take the scientists to the original image page that you evaluated. 😄

    UPDATE: 06/24/2014 --- I apologize stonepenny; you were doing it correctly; I was the one doing it wrong. It is the Talk URL at the top of the Talk Page that the Scientists want copied -- so they can read the comments! Otherwise, it's just a big picture, which they can access by right-clicking the Talk Page image themselves. My apologies. 😃

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    It'd be helpful if you could put the link to the photo when you post an "unknown" bio or any issue with a tag or bird. This way the tag can be checked to see if you may have mistaken the color, or identified the number incorrectly. If the tag and info is correct but there is no bio, it could be an issue with the photo as there is coding attached to it and that could have a problem even if you've entered the tag correctly. We'd have to have the URL to check.

    To copy and put the link to a photo in a post: when you're done with the photo and find a problem click the "do you want to discuss this image" button. This takes you to the comment page (feel free to put the issue in the comment area, too) . Right click on the photo and then click "copy image URL" You can now leave that page - the URL is in your clipboard.

    Come to the board you want to comment on and either PASTE that link into your post directly OR click on the "World" icon and paste the link there. You'll see a section that asks you to describe the link. This will be the BLUE wording in your post and will become the link. 😃

    Posted

  • CosmicLatte by CosmicLatte

    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0005m85 Condor 478 was born after the photo date. Silly condor.

    http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0004km4 Tag 78 doesn't belong to the poor condor who died in a wildfire in '08 that I'm being told it belongs to.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to CosmicLatte's comment.

    1. I hate when they do that. Will check this.

    2. It seems the bio is reflecting an "old" 78 who was born in 2006 and not the "now 78" 78, and I know you know what I mean. 😃 I will send it to the Smart People. Good catch, thank you!

    Posted

  • inaspin by inaspin

    http://www.condorwatch.org/subjects/standard/534c4b10d31eae0543064e11.JPG
    Blue 28 and black 70 failed to register bios. black 93 which I guessed at was OK!

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd

    misID Black 07 says Bio, but no Bio when you click link....our new type of misID, where known birds suddenly are unknown. Perhaps because I couldn't read the one or two dots that might be under the "0"? I've had No Bio from entering the wrong number of dots, on birds that are well known.

    Posted

  • BirdGrrl by BirdGrrl scientist in response to miltonbosch's comment.

    Black 07 is a special case. That tag was assigned to two birds during the same time period, at two different sites. One of those birds was known to migrate between the two sites, so we can't confirm for certain which of the birds you might be seeing.

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist

    I don't feel confident in my ability to discern color in this photo, but I think I understand what is going on. There are a very few cases (4 known so far) where the same tag was worn by different birds, but during different time periods. Ultimately it will be possible for us to assign IDs using photo year, but currently the website isn't set up to do that. Ugh, I know that is confusing -- hard to explain the tag issues clearly. Bottom line: blue18 and white18 appearing in the same photo would be 318 (born 03) and 418 (born 06). Both are central CA birds.

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to miltonbosch's comment.

    I'm sorry miltonbosch. I think I must have written something that was unclear (again 😃 ) .What we'd really like is the talk url. Once we have that, we can get the link to the original image in just the way you've described, but if we just have the link to the original image we don't see the conversation about the photo and can't comment on it. Thanks so much!!

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist

    Blue18 has been added. Should resolve to 318. Let me know if it doesn't. Thanks!!

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to miltonbosch's comment.

    Previously the site was not accounting for pattern (dots and underlines) in making IDs. It was merely assigning the first match on the list without regard for pattern. For quite awhile, the science team didn't realize this was happening and the programmers didn't realize it was wrong. However, pattern is an essential part of the tag and needed to assign an unambiguous ID. As a result we were getting a lot of misIDs. This was fixed several weeks ago, so observant site users like you noticed a change in bio reporting. There will be a few more unknown IDs in cases where pattern hard to see and is thus misreported. But, ultimately the pattern info is needed to resolve the tag (eg Black18 4dots and Black18 3dots are different birds). Another issue to keep in mind (which you probably know) is that the tag system has changed several times, so, for example, 418 wore Black18 4dots, Black18 underline, and White18 at different times. That is a big part of what makes this all so complicated! Thanks for all your careful work miltonbosch!

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to inaspin's comment.

    Not sure why this would have happened as these are clear tags and in our database. Did you include patterns, such as dots or underline (answer should be no 😃)? Please keep us posted if you have more issues like this. Thanks!!

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    These are Santa Barbara Zoo's own condors - the first generation of captive bred condors who are the children of the last, wild condors. They have been crucial in helping bring back the condor from extinction. You saw a truly rare bird up close and personal! 😃

    Here's more info on 44:

    44 - Nojoqui - was hatched at the San Diego Wild Animal Park in June 1986, where he was hand-raised. With mate #45 (Molloko), Nojoqui has produced 14 chicks; some were hand-raised, others had condor foster parents, four were raised by him. In order to have more genetic diversity in the captive condor population, Nojoqui was mated with #32 (Almiyi) in 2003 and produced an additional 12 eggs. #44 still lives at the Wild Animal Park, and with #45, is a grandparent of Santa Barbara Zoo condor #440 (a female condor hatched April 24, 2007, at the Center for Birds of Prey (Boise, Idaho) but who is now at Santa Barbara, too)

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    Moved from another board for stonepenny

    not sure where else to put this... #miss ID: 42 black (plain) flags up as 242 - black, 2 dots; 23 black, no bio, bird is centre, back to camera, tag on right wing. I used zoom to see it better, with a hand magnifier http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0002k9t

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd

    Major misID: Blue 11 and White 11 are both ID'ed as Bird 311. We know Blue 11 is bird 311, and White 11 is bird 411.

    Posted

  • yshish by yshish

    not sure, where to put my questions:

    1. there's a wing tag which looks like 7A (not sure about the colour). the 2nd symbol doesn't look like a top part of figure 4 to me at all. is there such a wing tag?
    2. i marked a wing tag as a 70, but didn't mark any colour, but bio says, it is 370 (born april 2005), it means, the colour would be blue, right? is that because we don't have 70 in a combination with other colours than blue, or does it IDied the wing tag wrongly?

    both are from this frame: http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0001t0g

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to yshish's comment.

    There is no 7A wing tag. A list of the "odd" tags you might see on Condor Watch can be found on the Gallery Of Wing Tags blog.

    In the photo you ask about, the tag numbers I see are: Black 70 (570), White 67 (467), White 62 (462), Black 42 (542), Black 76 (576).

    Condors with "70" wings tags are Black70●●● or Blue 70 (370 - this is the same bird- they had these 2 tags), Black 70 (570), White 70 (470)

    No idea why it would have brought up the bio for 370 but there was a glitch in the past that was fixed where this bio was being given for random tags. If you get this again please let us know. I replied to this in your comment photo, too, so will remove this post in a day or two when I'm sure you've seen this answer to keep the board tidy. Thanks for your question!

    Posted

  • myraf by myraf scientist

    Hi miltonbosch, you are right -- if the number has dots or an underline, it is necessary to put these in in order to come up with the correct bio.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    It's on the front page, I add the most recent photo it's been reported in next to the number so we can see how current the issue is. It's been every day now, so I'll add yours and remove an older one.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    Black 70 pulls up the bio for 370 which is the bio for Black 70●●● - -
    Black 70 in photo is juvenile; should be bio 570

    Black 60 pulls up the bio for 360 which is the bio for Black60●●● - -
    Black 60 in picture is juvenile - should be bio 560

    Black 68 pulls up the bio for 168 which is bio for Black 68● (born 1997) - -
    Black 68 in photo is juvenile - should be bio 568

    Black 67 pulls up the bio for 167 which is bio for Black 67● (born 1997) - -
    Black 67 in photo is juvenile, photo taken 2012 - should be bio 567

    Black 94 pulls up the bio for 194 born 1997 - -
    Black 94 in photo is juvenile, photo taken 2013 - should be bio 594

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    reposted for miltonbosch (to condense posts & with correction of bios)

    Black 99 pulls up the bio of 199 which is the bio for Black99● - -
    Black 99 in photo is juvenile - should be bio 560

    Black 68 pulls up the bio for 168 which is Black 68● hatched 1997 - -
    Black 68 in photo is juvenile - should be 568

    Black 90 pulls up the bio of 190 which is the bio for Black90● hatched 1998 - -
    Black 90 in photo is juvenile - should be 590

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd

    Why do Black 42 & Black 36 have such juvenile characteristics if they're 11 years old at the time this photo was taken? ID'ed as 236 and 242. I think Black 42 is bird 542; I have no idea who black 36 could be except 236.

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd in response to vjbakker's comment.

    Thank you, vjbakker for the correct way to link the Talk URL when discussing problem Bios on this page. I only just today saw your note posted 8 days ago; I've changed the hyperlinks on all my Wrong Bio posts to the Talk URL's.
    Thanks for pointing that out! 😃

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd

    Black 07 Says Bio, but Bio link says UC. Problem was explained on page 1 of this blog by BirdGrrl.

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd

    White 49 Bio says 449, who would be 4 years old in this 2011 photo, but his bird looks older than that (maybe?). Scientist's input would be much appreciated.

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd

    Black 9 and White 38 have wrong Bios. Bio says Black 9 is bird 209, who I think was dead before this 2011 photo. I think Black 9 is 509. White 38 listed as 238, but this is a juvey and is bird 538, I believe.

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to miltonbosch's comment.

    I agree that at first glance this bird looks clearly older than 4, but notice that its neck is pink and its head is still dark. We had a similar question in April about a photo of 483 when it was 4.5 years old but looked clearly mature (http://www.condorwatch.org/subjects/standard/534c4b59d31eae0543066e6f.JPG). We asked the US Fish and Wildlife Service and they went back through their archived photos and found a photo of 483 when it was not quite 4 and it looked a lot like 449 in this photo - dark head, pink neck. They concluded that the amount of color change was reasonable over the next 10 months so that it was nearly fully pink by 4.5 years old. So I feel comfortable concluding that this is indeed 449. But it brings up a great question. It would be really interesting to have a board here where people post photos of individual that are transitioning to maturity, to investigate the variance in ages at which this occurs. I'm not sure who well documented this is or what the determinants are. I'll look into it!

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    Bio for tag White 51 (far right) pulls up bio for 251 (black 2 dots)

    I think this should be 451?

    Posted

  • daishizukagmail.com by daishizukagmail.com scientist

    Could it be White 57?

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to daishizuka@gmail.com's comment.

    Well hi Dai 😃

    I believe this was White 51. There is a problem with White 57, too, which was posted earlier by stonepenny, and there's a photo of that tag for comparison with the original issue

    " #miss ID: 57 white, adult, is 457 (feeding) http://talk.condorwatch.org/#/subjects/ACW0001de7"

    My reply was to add - ... note for scientists ---- - 457 database Bio possibly attached to 457 Black-4 dots?

    The 7-s usually slant at the bottom and the 1-s are straight (usually being the operative word here).

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist

    I agree it's probably 51, and really it doesn't matter if it's actually a smiley face on the tag, if you put in white 51, you should get the bio for 451, not 251 as 251 has never worn a white tag. I've sent a prompt off to Zooniverse on this and the White1 issue. Sigh.....
    wreness, can you explain your comment bout stonepenny and white57 (sorry, I'm slow...)

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    You slow? I chortle.

    stonepenny had posted on the other board that she had an unknown bio for White 57. I had asked her if she meant there was no bio or it gave the wrong bio but I think she didn't see it or didn't remember and never replied.

    Anyway, she had an issue with White 57 so I copied her original post about it (above). Dai asked if the tag I'd had a problem with (white 51) might have been White 57 so I was saying that even though I was pretty sure it was 51, there is an issue with 57, too (per stonepenny)

    I took a guess and going by what the patterns of issues seems to be with tags them, I replied: (penny's) White 57 probably returned Bio 457 - which is the bio for Bio for Black-4 dots. Not an 'error' but since the tag colors are different it'd be natural to think it's an error 😃

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator

    reposted from comments for miltonbosch -

    "The usual White 78 listed as dead 278, when this is 478, who also later died. Must be a jinxed number 😦"

    (This bio is listed as one of the known "zombie condors" with the correction that it is not, but was reported as being an error 3 months ago on the first page of this board)

    added 7/20 - still returning bio for 278

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to wreness's comment.

    Got it!

    Posted

  • mboschmd by mboschmd

    New Wrong Bio/No Bio: Black 6. Tag is directly in front of camera, bird on scale. There is glare on the tag which could be hiding a single dot, and therefore No Bio.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to miltonbosch's comment.

    To grab the reply off the photo from Vj: "Think you're right. There is a Black6 1dot. It's 606, hatched 4/2011 @the LAZoo & just released 1/29/2013. The wild world is very new to him"

    (He sure figured out how to get on the scale fast. Aw 😃 )

    Posted

  • Aegypius by Aegypius

    Black 7 underlined on picture ACW004q7p taken 2010-11-27 10.45a.m. Bio says this individual is number 417 and died 2007. Maybe I'm wrong and it's a 2 instead of an underlined 7?

    Posted

  • vjbakker by vjbakker scientist in response to Aegypius's comment.

    Darn Aegypius, I'm not able to find that photo number, so I can't double check. 7 underline is indeed 417, who died in 2007. Sorry I'm not able to take a look at it.

    Posted

  • wreness by wreness moderator in response to Aegypius's comment.

    Hi Aegypius! Hi VJ!

    Your Image number left out a 0 which is why vjbakker couldn't find it. It's ACW0004q7p
    (but kudos for Confusing The Scientist! You win a fish! >}}}">)

    On the comments below the photo (on Talk) already is a discussion explaining the mystery - the Black Underline 7 you see is only a partial tag. It's probably Black 47 Underline and if you look at the large pic, you'll see that the edge closest to you is curled, blocking the 4.

    There's no way to know this unless you went to the TALK page to comment on it and saw the previous comments on it (always an option, too) or if you enlarge the photo and catch the tags. If you need help on enlarging the photos or how to get those, message me (or maybe you know how and just didn't or are on a phone)

    Posted

  • mapat by mapat

    #misID black 3 came up no bio
    Image ACW0005li5

    Posted

  • MSAC by MSAC

    there seems to be a problem - after inputting data, the bios that come up usually seem to pick out only ONE of the birds which i have identified, and repeat my entry - so I might have identified a bird as 43, and then another as 11, along with colours etc, but then a 'bio' will come up for 2 birds both identified as 43.

    Is this a major problem? Should I be continuing to classify regardless, or should I wait until this is fixed?

    Thank you in advance!

    Posted