A suggestion comes to mind here, call it sweet fantasy if you will. The question of sightings databases keep coming up, why not (the fantasy part) all groups find one location, post all reports (even the questionable ones) for all researchers, independent or group, to view.

I know the BFRO would probably be the big stumbling block, but maybe Bipto could put an area up on the BFF for this. If Autumn, AIBR, Nesra, SRI and everyone else with reports could post them in one area, the research benefits would be tremendous in my opinion. Break it down to sections, and let everyone see the info out in the open. Call it our own ARPA network (Early Internet) where scientists shared their information with each other.

Like I said, sweet fantasy, but wouldn't the benefits be fantastic for the research in general? I think it would.

that's a nice idea.

Hi Darkwing,

It WOULD be great for research... but not necessarily for witnesses. Remember, many researchers with websites, and without, obtain reports because of their individual reputation as a researcher.
Eyewitnesses go to those whom they feel comfortable with. I keep eyewitness contact information confidential for a reason... not to hog the report, but because there are researchers out there who would not deal with the witness with the same level of respect and integrity that I do. I know that my witnesses appreciate this. Occasionally, I will share FULL reports with researchers I know and trust who are in the witness' area and can contact them and give them the support they wish. But posting eyewitness information in a public free-for-all is a SCARY idea and, I would think, would discourage witnesses from coming forward.

My two cents.

Autumn

Autumn,
Witness information could be withheld by the contributor of the report, but the actual information that would benefit everyone would be the details regarding hair color, height etc. of the bigfoot sighting and the general location, making it easier to look at the demographics, etc. I agree, no witness information, but the other info would be extremely helpful.

True dat. :wink: That's why I publish report information and make it available to others.

My only other concern, then, would be finding the time to share the reports - i.e., uploading them to another site. I have a hard enough time getting reports published on MY site... I've got a backlog right now, unfortunately. But then, I'm not an organization, I'm just one gal. I've got a couple of people whom I trust to help, but finding the time to train and delegate is another matter entirely. I've never WANTED to be the "great leader" of a big organization. I'd rather spend time doing research than trying to manage people and personalities. Just seems like too much headache.

Autumn

Hmmm... you mean like ONE database? One database that the public would see when they hit the internet? One database that the public could have absolute confidence in? Like just one place where an actual qualified and trusted 'researcher' could have access to all North American reports? You really mean just one database that could cross referance all sorts of things, including hoaxers internet IDs and even critter behavior and characteristics, time of day, weather, etc, etc? Do you really mean just one place where the "science" of it all could be consolidated, and where it could be trusted that 'credible' reports were investigated by 'credible' people who ascertained the full 'credibility' of the witnesses?

I don't know darkwinglh, I know you acknowledged this was a 'sweet fantasy', but I honestly think you must have been into the koolaid yerself and that you should be forever banned from the world of things sasquatchian. How can we ever conduct business as usual if someone comes around here spouting common sense??

:pokey:


"Trying to unify Bigfoot Researchers is like trying to herd chickens." Source Unknown

Nightowl,

Don't tell anybody about this, but that's precisely what I'm working on. I hope to have this built in short order (with some help from the angels!), and once I do it will be available to everyone, via AIBR, for...get this...free. And no, I'm not shitting you.

Fish, now that is something for me to look foreward to :new_thumbsupsmileyanim: Hope you guys can get it up and running soon.

As for this one big database, couldn't the witness/contact info be kept in a separate individual researcher database... you know, each independent researcher has access to only their witness/contact info, in their own db. Then, it could be linked to the main db with a unique identifier(maybe a number and code for that researcher)?

Just a thought. I have a BS in Computer Science... Give me a language, if I don't know it, I'll learn it and help!

Well, I don't have a BS in anything but ...uhhh..... BS but I' m all for helping! This is an idea near and dear to my heart!

T

I guess I overstepped the bounds... but I've been thinking this is something to think about for a long while... a db with all that information, gathered together... wow, it could be great, and it'd be so easy to do.

sorry if I threw the BS... I did work long and hard for it. I worked in the field of financial institutions. Currently, I don't get paid for that. Damn kids, get off my lawn.... oh yeah.

But, I'm still willing to contribute, where I can.

You didn't overstep the bounds at all Autumn. Anybody with the abilities you have should be welcomed with open arms! :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Oh and I don't think you'll be getting an e.mail either Paul. I think the talent on this forum is grossly under-rated by those who would tell tales. I honestly don't blame anyone in this kind of mess for trying to dig themselves out of a hole like has been dug in this thread. Unfortunately for Kevin, apparently the explanation wasn't well thought out. I feel for you Kevin, I really do. It must be embarrassing to be caught in something like this after the fact, and then to be caught in subsequent lies trying to dig your way out. Honesty actually is the best policy. Membership in the BFRO isn't worth losing your reputation and integrity. Once that's gone the door closes behind it and there's no way back.

FYI, oregonfooter isn't me. I'm oregonbigfoot. But thanks all the same.

Autumn

Well :doh: LOL That's what I get for not reading the names right LOL

So are you saying you're going to make the program (data base) available free to anyone who wants it, or give free access to the database once it created?

In essence, this is something we've kicked around at SRI, with plans discussed to allow "legit" researchers to access the database on a limited basis. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop anyone from reading the published reports anyway.

Are we talking the same thing here, or is it "apples and oranges"?

This may be a bit premature, but in the hopes of getting more response, once online, the NESRA sightings database will be the same thing, public and free. Sharing info is the way to go.

OK, I'm going to get my tail feathers burned for this, but in responce to GuyInIndiana, if this new databank is only going to be open to only "legit" researchers - who makes the decission who is "legit". Would there be a vote, as there is to join the SRI. Would a committee make up their minds. I think this is a serious question. Also how much would be made available to these "allowed" researchers. I do not mean to offend - but it does smack to me of something like the BFRO Flats. Where only the acceptable is allowed to view. I know of some people here who I would concider "legitamate researchers" but have stepped on some toes. Would they be accepted or kept from information. I would hate to see 2 of the major organizations holding back on their info. To the detrament of the entire field.

Now hide and peek out :couch:

Who's legit, good question. My opinion is that anyone who can demonstrate by some means their genuine interest in and is active in some capacity in the field of study. Whoever holds the database utimately is going to decide who gets to see it. I have others in Indiana who have asked to know or see more on some of the reports I have submitted to my website. Some GET TO see and know what all I've received.. and simply stated, more often, some don't.

And clearly, not ALL of any database could or SHOULD be viewable to "everyone who asks or wants to". There IS the larger issue of maintaining witness confidentiality and the integrity of the group in the public's eyes by not violating the witnesses privacy.

Opening up a large independent research database obviously comes with it's own set of problems such as who gets in and who doesn't. I agree with GuyInIndiana. For those who are active in research and who want to investigate reports in their area, or other areas if they can get to those, then I would think they should have access to a cross organization database. Obviously, there has to be some control involved because of the importance of witness confidentiality. People would have to respect the individual who already has a report and is investigating it so there wouldn't be two or more independents working the same sighting apart from each other. I think mutual respect would have to come into play, and for those who would like to participate in something like this, I think it would be a great opportunity for some great work to be done for all of us interested, and for the research in general.

My two pennies

I can't even imagine what it would be like to link databases around the country into one big clearinghouse of sighting reports, but I bet it would be great if it could be done.

billkirbywofb... my friend... the title of "Legit Researcher" can be claimed after you pay your $400 and attend the Expedition.

(ok, I apologize to all... Fishbone, GuyInIndiana, and whoever eles I may have offended with this crass remark. And, if I did not offend you, then please take a number and wait patiently in line, I will get to you soon.)

Just quoting ARsquatch as the last word I'd seen before I pressed post..

I think this is an interesting idea, worth considering, but I think it might profit by having its own thread, away from this nonsense.

I agree DB. This would be better served in its own thread, since it has nothing to do with the BFRO matter.

I very much agree with the need to maintain the confedenciality of reporters identify. That goes without saying. Unless for some reason they want it published.
What I am worried about is who can or can not access the data. I worry about past politics and personal problems effecting who gets to view the information. We have seen the problems the BFRO has had with hording information. I hate to see that happen again


Mods -- Could a new thread be made concisting of the half dozen posts that deal with a new databank rather than the one it is in now, concerning direct problems with the BFRO Thanks

Yes T... and billkirbywofb, and dbdonlon, and whoever else - I do agree with you... a thread about the concept of ONE database serving ONE field of research certainly deserves it's own thread. It is about time the real issue was discussed, as there are many things that need to be ironed out before that can be accomplished.


HOWEVER: "Now Serving Number 561"

I do not agree that this thread, "Wassup with the BFRO", is nonsense. Facts is facts, like them or not - there is nothing wrong with reality unless it is covered up, spun, denied, or misinterpreted. Reality is not nonsense. jmho.

What I have envisioned (and I'm currently only about 25% into this project, so it won't be happening overnight, unfortunately), is a free program that will be available to anyone who wants it. It will be fully customizable meaning you can filter the data any way you like, throw out reports you don't want, or include reports you do want. What I'm not saying is that you'll have a database complete with reports when you get it, but rather the program itself which can be built upon either by direct data entry, or by importing the data from outside sources. For instance, the AIBR will be able to provide monthly updates directly from our site.

This will also allow researchers to create a database that can be geographically specific to their own areas. It will also allow researchers to share their databases if they choose to do so.

I think most people involved in this endeavor can see what the long-term benefits of such a program will be.


I think we're pretty much talking apples and apples, just maybe red delicious versus granny smith. :wink:


Yep. Absolutely! That information will be kept separate on its own table.


Hey! I just heard one' a' them angels singing! :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Fine, Bill, just fine. Put me to work why don't you!

:laugh: j/k (I'll get this split out in just a moment.)

<grumble grumble> ok post moved

Ok, not to make things more complicated, but would this centralized database come with some kind of disclaimer that explains that not all reports were necessarily supported/validated by all parties involved?? I am thinking not all input is going to satisfy all data-gatherersers.

Would it not be easier (or more practical) to just somehow group and make searchable those reports already out there thru a centralized search engine, tying in all the databases, yet have the reports REMAIN where they are originally published, independently investigated and written up? I would think this would be practical for a number of reasons..

1 - less work and less redundancy (less bandwidth)
2 - folks could judge the validity of each report based on the reputation of the original researcher
3 - researchers could maintain the confidentiality of their contact info

Am I making any sense here?

Thanks Tim, your idea sounds outstanding and without a doubt I'd use the program you are talking about for my research. And since I believe in sharing resources, I'd make what I have available to others. I don't have much yet, but do have a few things -- working in the VA, WV, PA area.

With what I'm envisioning, the answer would be no. The reason is, when you d/l this database, that's all you're going to get to start with. A blank database. Hopefully by the time this is put together there will be enough data compiled that we can have an export file already available though.

There won't be a need for a disclaimer either since you will actually have the database on your own hard drive and you'll be able to edit it in any manner you see fit. So, if you think someone is full of crap and you wouldn't believe any of their reports, just delete them. Conversely, if you think someone who everyone else believes is full of crap, is legit, then you can add their reports.


I'm not really sure if it would be easier or not. If there was only a link to the report though, then you wouldn't be able to filter the data and there'd also be the problem of having different databases laid out in different orders, so it'd be hard to cherry pick the correct data fields. At least from this computer chair! :wink:


Of course you are!


I know what you mean about not having much, DB. I guess I'm kinda' seeing this like the old school Napster days. You've got about a dozen songs on your PC, I've got about a dozen on mine, but there are many more people out there who have different songs too. If we all choose to network and share those "songs", we'll be able to compile a huge library in fairly short order.

This was the exact reasoning that made me decide to start contributing my own reports to larger databases, rather than establishing one myself. Better that a large framework of reports be established than to have many scattered amongst a slew of regional or smaller groups.

I just wanted to add that I'm compiling this database format from John Green's Computer Report Guide, 1995, (No. 3), that he was gracious enough to supply me with a few years ago, as well as formatting from the BFRO database since I'm familiar with that one.

Mr. Green's Guide is very extensive and I'm in the process of transcribing it. Once I'm done I'll post it here for everyone's review. It's somewhat confusing too to begin with since Mr. Green knew what he was referring to when he compiled this list and I'm still unsure what he's referring to in some of the fields.

I do think it will all come out in the wash eventually though.

gotta work on my singing voice..... doe ray me fah so ...

the independent community so needs something like this!

I was just thinking that it can be hard to read a thread like the one about the hoaxing attempt...But at the same time, if this hatches a database that is broadbased, searchable, and accessible to ALL, that would be a very good thing.

Keep up the good (HARD) work, all...I am cheering for ya. :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

I have no significant comuter training, but I am available for any sort of assistance you may think you would need. post up if there is any way I can help.

Smitty

Well, seems like we are headed in the right direction, but the main question that needs to be asked first, is who will host it? I run my server off of DSL, so that kind of leaves me out of the running (Due to speed issues). Would SRI or AIBR be interested in hosting it? Or would Bipto consider integrating it into the BFF? Let's get a host committed to it first and start working on the framework once that is accomplished, does that sound reasonable?

Lot's of thoughts here...

The way I look at it, what we're talking about here is an Open Source Sightings and Encounters database (OSSE for short?). Every organization that can demonstrate they have a process where reports are investigated in person (or minimally via phone interview) should be allowed to contribute. Each org would still be able to keep some reports private for their own organization (for a variety of reasons) but all the reports they make public should be included in the OSSE database. All reports would need to be as uniformly collected as possible (meaning the the data points should be consistent).

I also thing that the AIBR, SRI, BFRO, or whoever should not 'own' the OSSE database. If it were left up to me, there would be a separate entity established made up of representatives of all the contributing orgs to manage the project. That may sound like it's adding a bunch of complexity, but knowing this field as I do, establishing ownership up front (or, more precisely, non-ownership) is paramount.

As far as physical hosting in concerned, that's easy. The hard part is building the physical database and establishing the mechanics of how it would be updated among the various contributing orgs.

This is gonna sound like one of those naysaying bigfoot statements , but its not, Just a series of questions/ thoughs that seems to often get lost in the excitment of an idea when its born.

The first and most glaring is one of witness confidentiality, when an someone reports a sighting , it would have to be made known to them up front that it would be a shared database among many . They may not be aware that if they report to a certain org, group. or individual that it will be centraly shared by such a database.


Even that being the case and the witness agreeing with it what kind of quality control is there ? Not to pick on Bipto, but while the idea of this is great the execution of it may not be. The problem is ( and I know Tim addressed this somewhat already alread) that having to pick and choose data like this could feasably get you several seperate people working on the same goal with staggering differences in results based on the variance of reports they chose to include in a particular study.

Also even being able to demonstrate a process, how to you verify that it is being adhered to or that the information, even if falling under strict guidlines would be accurate or complete without broaching that witness confidentiality?

Lots more questions/ thought but I'll leave it at that for now.

I think there'd need to be built-in the ability for an org to keep private data private. If they chose not to publish a report for any reason, it would not be added to the OSSE DB. Also, there may be aspects of a report that would not be made public or should not be made public (such as contact info). That'd be OK. In the scenario I envision, only the parts of a report that are public would be shared, so no org would be giving up any proprietary info. However, if this kind of thing was going to work, I think no participating org would be able to keep any otherwise public report from being added to the OSSE.


Yep, I agree. Keeping reports at a consistent quality is going to be an issue (just as it's an issue within the BFRO). Not sure how to deal with this...

The only way I can see to do it ,is a mutual agreement of a report review system, where if there are anything felt by those who review such a thing as a discrepancy, the investigator of the report would be required to re contact the witness and " fill in the blanks' so to speak. problem with that is. How do you do that wihtout overly annyoing the witness, or could that be accounted for in a submission form, or upon the initial investigation ?

Of course the above would also be dependant up on a whole lot of people agreeing to what also contitutes evidence or valid data. So another conundrum..

Oh that Fishy is a smart fellow

Good Luck Buddy

Oh come on, Jim. It couldn't be any harder than herding cats, could it? :laugh:

uh okay, can I weigh in here, because Jim's issues are exactly what I used to do as an editor for the BFRO. Not to toot my own horn, but we've all seen the fall in quality of reports over the months after the mass exodus, when the BFRO lost good investigators including the editing/proofreading staff. Why couldn't something like a proofreading department be utilized who look for discrepancies, inconsistancies and other problems in the reports and follow-ups and advise or suggest to the investigators working on the reports what further data it needs, or in the case of a glaring discrepancy, the fact there there is one.

I don't think I ever ran into a witness who was annoyed by further questions about their encounter, if anything they were quite happy to talk to someone who was genuinely interested and not ridiculing them. Open annoyance to me by a witness would hint to that perhaps all was not on the level and would throw a red flag up about the report (or that there was a problem with the investigator/witness dynamics). A hoaxer wouldn't want to have to retell his story over and over or answer more questions for fear of being caught in a lie. Less is more when you're a hoaxer. Genuine witnesses like to discuss their encounters.

Just my thoughts. I'm not trying to work myself into a position as proofreader, but I can see how people who volunteer to do that service could be of benefit.

It sounds to me like the first step here is to establish a list of things any contributing organization would have to do to be able to contribute. Things like running reports through a proofreader, etc. These would be the baseline requirements and would help to ensure a certain quality level in the reports.

Those are both good points, T and Bipto, but now we're starting to talk more about apples and oranges, as least as it relates to what I'm referring to doing.

For an organization, those qualifications should be mandatory. However, life and people being the way they are, some will embrace that and others will abhor it. I've seen it too many times in this field already.

That's the difference in what I'm discussing. I guess the best example I can come up with would be standards as they relate to plumbing and electrical wiring. Certain standards were determined early on and due to that it takes a tremendous amount of guesswork out of those two jobs. That's essentially what I'm talking about doing. I'm going to create a template that will, in ALL likelihood, have more data fields in it than anyone will ever really need. Actually, seeing a sighting report with all fields filled would be just short of miraculous.

And this would not be hosted by anyone other than the individual who chooses to load it on their hard drive. It will also then be up to the individual as to whether or not they include the work of other individuals or organizations. In contrast, a database for AIBR will be a separate entity that would be run independent of the free database. Sure, both can contain the same reports and information, but confidential information, such as witness names and phone numbers, would be unavailable to the general public. Of course, the same would apply to the free database in that it would be up to the individual (or organization) to redact their witness data when making their information available for export.

Gotcha. I musunderstood. You should just go on with what you're doing, because you're the one who knows what you envision and how best to bring that to fruition. I am excited about it and can't wait to see it rolled out!

T

Fish, I hear what you're saying and I love what you're doing! The template idea will take much of the guess work out of it, and will serve as a guide to investigators who haven't been a part of a larger org and are new to interviewing witnesses.




That would be well and good IF everyone who wanted to add to the database were a member of an organization. What about us poor lonely independants?

Same here, T! This is definitely something to look foreward to, and is a much needed breath of fresh air! I can't wait.

Jay, if I understand Fish right, this is FOR the independents. One big old sweet database for independents.

Yep! Uh huh! :yeahthat:

Fish has a database that could help independant researchers, but the overall point here is a 'national' sightings database that all independant researchers could contribute too.

So far from the points made we would need the following.

1. An advisory board to proofread and assess reports being submitted to the database.
2. A classification system for sightings.
3. Witness contact information would be withheld by the submitter (researcher), and any questions would be forwarded to the submitter (researcher) who would then contact the witness.
4. Even hoaxed reports could be placed in their own category, so researchers could see what a hoaxed report could look like.
5. Requirements to establish who can post reports to the database. Viewing would be open to all.
6. Open source for the database. No one owns it, it will be public domain (except for witness and contact information which will reside with the contributing researcher)
7. The ability to grow.

Did I miss anything?

I would also like to see this database grow in terms of a gallery of hoaxed pictures, blobsquatches and purported bigfoot pictures, a gallery of animal sounds and purported bigfoot recordings, an animal track catalog like that one started here on the bff, a spot for articles written by researchers and an archive of old newspaper articles like those posted here on the BFF. Why you ask, to put all the information of this type into one location for all researchers to share. I have a huge collection of animal sounds on my website that I would be happy to donate so others could compare them with any recordings that they may have.

Many would say that the BFF already takes care of most of this, but you still have to spend a lot of time searching for the information and filtering out what you don't want.

If we could pull this off, this would be probably the greatest thing to happen to bigfoot research outside of an actual bigfoot body. After all, we have most of the brightest and best of the field here that can contribute.

IMHO

I do think there's a good reason to pursue the national database idea. My immediate thoughts are that a thing like that needs an organisation (oops, pardon my British variant spelling, which I will leave for colour..) and the question I'd have is, why not just use the AIBR since it is the Association of INDEPENDENT Bigfoot Researchers? The AIBR already has a staff of folks who are by and large trusted by the community, they certainly have the experience necessary, and they have been set up in the right way for something like this to flourish. I'm of course volunteering them, and they may decide they want nothing to do with it, but it just seems to me that a lot of the work is already done if they'll take it on. They could make the national database an entity quite apart from their own investigators' database - all it means is extra work. A lot of it..

But mostly I'm thrilled like a kid at Christmas to be getting the database Fish is offering FOR FREE! I can't wait.