Changing recording demographics

When we took on the Hoverfly Recording Scheme (HRS) in 1991 the ways in which data were submitted and absorbed were utterly different from today. Likewise, the contact we had with recorders was also very different. Most people submitted records on cards or via a bespoke database such as RECORDER or MAPMATE. We did a great deal of the data entry and mainly communicated by letter or through the HRS Newsletter. Feedback was inevitably intermittent and we could control the pace at which we worked. Data entry was confined to the winter months, whilst we had the summer to do our own field work.

Scrolling forward 25 years, we have seen a paradigm shift in which databases have substantially disappeared from the scene, spreadsheets are the main way in which data arrive, and we now extract some data direct from posts on Facebook, Flickr, iSpot etc. We mainly communicate via the UK Hoverflies Facebook page and provide more permanent feedback on this blog. The HRS Newsletter continues and does reach some of our traditional recorders who don't 'do' social media. This shift is clearly illustrated in Figure 1, which was prepared by Stuart for his talk to the Huntingdon Flora and Fauna Society last night.

Figure 1. Sources of data arriving at the HRS, 1991 to 2018.

There has also been a remarkable change in recruitment of new recorders. There are several ways in which one can define a new recorder: the critical issue is probably to define those who genuinely make a regular or substantial contribution to the dataset rather than those one-off casual records that add lots of names but very few records. Thus, we can see from Figure 2 that until around 2006, the numbers of new recruits were relatively small; often below 30 per year. There are two reasons that explain the rise from 2006 onwards.

Firstly, we became a lot more active running training courses from around 2005 onwards. Initially we were constrained by the need to use venues where people brought their own microscopes or used those 'scopes provided at the venue. This constraint was removed in 2009 when a grant from the OPAL fund allowed us to buy 13 microscopes which we now transport to far-flung venues. So, we would like to think that our efforts to train and enthuse have had some impact.

Around the same time, iSpot and 'Wild About Britain' became available as a way for people to get help with identification of their finds. It encouraged a new photographic recording community and set the scene for much greater inter-active recording. In reality, interactive media have probably played a far bigger role in growing the recorder community, which is most obvious from Figure 2. This graph uses two different metrics to define a new recorder: one based on regular submission of 5 or more records yearly, and the other based on the total number of records submitted, with 250 as the threshold for a 'new' recorder. Both systems tell a similar story, with a clear jump in activity from around 2011 and a further jump around 2014 when the UK Hoverflies Facebook page really became established.

Figure 2. Metrics for defining 'new recorders'. The upper graph comprises the numbers of recorders in a given year, whilst the lower one illustrates recruitment of major contributors.

This year, we are pretty well up to date with importing data into the HRS database, so the figures for numbers of records yearly are almost 'real-time'. They tell a similar story to the numbers of recorders, but really highlight the impact of the Facebook group, which I think we can say with confidence has almost doubled the numbers of records entering the system (Figure 3). The total for 2017 is likely to climb a little more because we always see a slow trickle of records over the year after a big influx in January. Whether 2017 will ultimately overtake 2016 remains to be seen, but it is highly likely. I suspect we have a little way further to go before a new asymptote is reached, but my guess is that the new level of recording will probably lie somewhere between 60 and 70,000 records annually.

Figure 3. Numbers of records on the HRS database