Does growth in the volume of records equate to growth in the recorder skill-base?

I did a very simple analysis this afternoon, looking at the numbers of records generated from social media in the period 2015 to 2018. Most of those records come from the UK Hoverflies Facebook page which is the main mentoring tool for the Hoverfly Recording Scheme. The results are worth looking at because they tell an important story.

It might be assumed that a large increase in the numbers of records reaching recording schemes is a direct reflection of the growth in skills amongst recorders. At least, we would like to think so.  The headline message is that 2,228 people participated between 2015 and 2018 (Figure 1) via social media in that period and contributed 83,309 records. It is very encouraging to say the least.

Figure 1. Recruitment of contributors to HRS data derived from social media between 2015 and 2018.

The message is a little more sobering, however, when one looks more rigorously at the data. Of those 2,229 recorders, 619 have contributed 10 or more records and 227 have contributed 50 or more records (Figure 2). There is no point in trying to take this analysis further because at least 35 of the 133 really active recorders (who have contributed in excess of 100 records) have moved over to running their own spreadsheets. That is a result in its own right because, between them, this nucleus contributed 26,616 records, or approximately 30% of the data.

Figure 2. Recruitment of active recorders between 2015 and 2018.

There are two elements to recruitment:

The first is, of course, assembly of a bigger and more riobust dataset, which is really needed if we are to understand what is happening to hoverfly numbers. Although this sort of recording tends to concentrate on the commoner and more readily recorded species, big blocks of data will help to idenbtify the bellwethers of change.

I think the more important issue is probably the generation of a new cohort of specialists who can take on the mentoring role that the current scheme organisers fulfil. In this respect, we are doing very well with five or six very active members now regularly assisting newcomers with identications. Getting members to this point is really important and it is encouraging to see how they adopt suitably cautious approaches that demonstrate that they have learned and understand the limitations to what can and cannot be done from photographs. Thus, I think the results to date are extremely positive, especially as we will doubtless get a few new recriuits who will join that experienced pool each year.