[obol] An Outside Perspective on 4-Letter Codes

[johntubbs at comcast.net]

Hi Everyone,

I am mostly a lurker on OBOL since I live in WA.  Here's a perspective from OBOL's equivalent in WA for those of you who aren't TWEETERS list subscribers.

Discussions such as the current one about banding codes are known on Tweeters as "the dreaded four letter code thread" - which falls in the same category as "the dreaded cat thread" (inside vs. outside cats), "the dreaded to feed or not to feed thread" etc.  The various "dreaded threads" repeat periodically as memories fade or new people join the forum and history predictably repeats itself.  Opinions on some topics are simply so engrained that they can be debated endlessly with the predictable result mostly being frustration among the debaters.  Most people's minds are made up, period end of story.  The non-believers on either side are unlikely to be converted, so at some point the energy being expended is best saved and directed at actual birding.

The acrimony falls (almost) completely silent if people just reference the codes in the beginning of the message, as was suggested earlier [e.g. PEREGRINE FALCON (PEFA) and COOPER'S HAWK (COHA) Interaction in the title line or in the first line of the post].  Then both camps can understand the rest of the post.  The poster can save time in typing (and yes it does save significant time) but the audience doesn't feel like they're at an Italian opera when the English reader board is broken.  And codes are extremely helpful for longhand if your penmanship, like mine, is slow and sloppy.  

For what it's worth, not that long ago I thought codes were too complicated and of little value to me.  They're very helpful now, but I also understand the frustration they cause in non-believers, having been one.


John Tubbs
SNOQ (Snoqualmie), WASH (Washington)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.oregonstate.edu/mailman/private/obol/attachments/20070912/f4bcf565/attachment.htm