Cinnamon Hummingbird

Welcome to the Birder's Diary Forum for Support And General Questions

Use the Support forum for all questions or issues.
Use the Wish List forum to leave your ideas for improving Birder’s Diary.
Use the Community Sharing forum for sharing Photos, Trips, Stories, etc.
Setup your Forum photo and profile here.

Earliest Sightings ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

[Solved] Earliest Sightings Are Not Checked in the "L" Column

5 Posts
2 Users
1 Reactions
97 Views
Posts: 21
Topic starter
(@davidjbarton)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 years ago

Hi, Jeff!  The earliest-in-time recorded sightings of a number of species do not have a check mark under the "L" (Lifer) column.  Not sure why--maybe because of deletions of certain lifer sightings? Anyway, is there a way to manually enter the check mark where appropriate?  (The "L" column doesn't seem to be editable--there is no field for it under "Edit Sightings.")  Should I just start a new user-defined field for lifer?

BD v.6.1 (Build 29); Windows 10 Pro; Birds--Clements-Cornell--2023.  

Reply
4 Replies
(@davidjbarton)
Joined: 3 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

Thanks, Jeff--you are patient and helpful as always.  Following your instructions on sample species whose earliest-in-date sighting did not previously display a checked "L" column, I now see another sighting that bore checked "L" column for the sighting.  The problem, though, wasn't that with the Countable or LLD boxes.  Instead, the problem seems to arise from the fact that I have sightings of the sample species at two locations, each of which is earliest-in-date and neither of which is time-marked.  Of course, only one of which is L-checked (I assume it was the first of the two to have been entered).  And I had been conducting my View/Edit search with the "First Seen" box checked, which (logically enough) forces the program to display only one of the two sightings.  What confuses me is why, between the two earliest-in-date sightings, the "non-Lifer" sighting (the one without a checked "L" box) was being displayed as "First Seen."  Shouldn't the "Lifer" sighting have been displayed?  I must be missing something . . . 

Reply
Jeff
Posts: 983
 Jeff
Admin
(@jeff)
Creator & Technical Support
Joined: 4 years ago

Hi David,

Thanks for posting. And thanks for the info, such as version of BD.

The "L" column is computed during the screen load. No field to edit or set, per se.

The question is, why doesn't it consider a sighting, that you think should be the first, to be a LIFER?

We can figure this out as such...

  1. Just pick one (just one) of the species you see in your list that is questionable (e.g. Northern Harrier) and let's look at all such sightings.
  2. Open View Sightings Setup (F3) as such. Set it up as you see below.
    We are clearing all settings. Searching on 'Northern Harrier' and sorting by Date/Time ASCending.
    image
  3. When the grid comes up, click on the "Display Options" button in the toolbar if the options are not already shown. Check 'Life List disabler' and 'Not Countable'. (I just changed the labels on this and you won't have that yet.)
    image
  4. Now we can see the earliest sightings. Which have the "L" column checked and whether the "LLD" and the "Countable" (really Not Countable) columns checked.

Now it should be clear what is checked as a Lifer and why?

Start here, and if unclear, post screenshots of your View Setup and Sightings Grid as I have above. And we will work through it.

This does not require an extra UDF field or any extra work. We just need to figure out what it doesn't match what you expect.

Looking forward to hearing back.

Reply
Jeff
Posts: 983
 Jeff
Admin
(@jeff)
Creator & Technical Support
Joined: 4 years ago

@davidjbarton

Hi David,

I was able to reproduce what you are seeing. I agree, it should work the way you expect. 

I have fixed this in the next release. But that won't be until v6.2 which I have been working on for a couple months. That fix will be in 6.2.

Thanks for finding this. 

Reply
(@davidjbarton)
Joined: 3 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@jeff Sounds good, Jeff.  I'll keep an eye out for v6.2.

Reply
Share: