Chimp & See Talk

New hashtagging guidelines for number of chimps - please read carefully :-)

  • maureenmccarthy by maureenmccarthy scientist, moderator

    You may have noticed that we recently started a new series of hashtags for the number of individuals in a video clip. Please read the following carefully and feel free to join in if you like! ☺

    (Note: We would still ask that you add the #chimp hashtag to any chimp videos you find. The following would just provide some additional information. Thanks!)

    For each video clip, we would like to know the total number of chimpanzees that appear in that clip, as follows:
    #1_chimp, #2_chimp, etc.

    Please note that we are not asking you to estimate the party size over multiple clips, nor the total number of individuals you think are present at a given time over a sequence of clips together. This is a more complex analysis which we will do later. You should only indicate how many chimps you have seen in that video alone.

    In most cases, it will be easy to count the number of individuals you have seen in a clip. However, it can get tricky sometimes. Here are some examples of what to do in different challenging cases.

    The number of chimps changes during the video because one or more individuals enters or exits the frame.

    In this case, your hashtag should indicate the maximum number of chimps. For example, if there are three chimps at the beginning, then one leaves, you should add the hashtag #3_chimp.

    Chimps enter and leave the frame, but you cannot tell whether they are the same or different individuals.

    In this case, you should hashtag it TWICE. First, provide the minimum number of chimps, assuming that that it was the same individuals who left and re-entered the frame. Second, provide the maximum number of chimps if we assume they are different individuals. For example, there are three chimps at the beginning of the clip, then a chimp leaves and, a few seconds later, a chimp enters the frame. You cannot tell whether it is the same chimp. Hashtag it #3_chimp AND #4_chimp.

    The video is unclear and you can’t see for sure how many chimps are there.

    Hashtag the video with the minimum number of individuals you know you can see AND with the maximum number you think you see. For example, if you definitely see two chimps but you think you count as many as 4 more way in the back and hidden by some foliage, use the hashtags #2_chimp AND #6_chimp.

    Basically, in cases of uncertainty, hashtag both the minimum and maximum number of chimps you can count.

    There is an infant in the clip and you are not sure whether to count them.

    Yes, count the infants! For example, if there are two mothers and two infants, use the hashtag #4_chimp.

    You hear what you believe is a chimp rustling or vocalizing off camera and you are not sure whether they should be counted in the total number.

    Do not count these individuals. We don’t want to be speculative about noises that may or may not be made by chimps, and even if they are chimps, we can’t know for sure how many are off camera. Additionally, some vocalizations like pant hoots, as well as chimpanzee drumming sounds, can carry over long distances and may be associated with chimps in a different party. Therefore, we would not be interested in including them in the number of individuals present in that party.

    You see a given chimpanzee in one clip, then in the next clip you can't see them but you're sure they must still be around.

    In such cases, do not count them unless you actually see them in the clip. Chimpanzee parties are very fluid and we might make incorrect assumptions if we count individuals we can't actually see. If you aren't sure whether you still see the chimp in the associated clips or not, you can use two count hashtags: one for the minimum count and one for the maximum, as explained above.

    You disagree with the hashtag another citizen scientist has given for the number of chimps.

    Please add your own hashtag! Disagreements and coding differences are a very critical part of the process, and in some videos it will be difficult to make a single correct determination. If your count leads to a different number of chimps, it is very important to add your own hashtag with the number you counted!

    Please let us know if any questions or problems come up with these hashtags. Thanks so much!

    Posted

  • kristinhavercamp by kristinhavercamp scientist

    Hey Maureen, what about not only tagging the total number of chimps (e.g. #2_chimp) but also, if possible, tagging them by sex (e.g. #1_female or #2_female, #1_male or #2_male, #1_unknown or #2_unknown)? Maybe the unknown tag would assist scientists in finding videos that need a second (or seventh) pair of eyes to determine the sex of individuals? What do you think, or is it maybe too complicated?

    Posted

  • maureenmccarthy by maureenmccarthy scientist, moderator

    Hi @kristinhavercamp,
    Thanks for the suggestion! Why don't we give it some thought? My inclination is that we are getting the sexes of each individual via their individual IDs (name hashtags), and that for the unknowns, we have a temporary ID or infant ID for them. Getting a hashtag count of the number of chimps will be quite helpful alone, but beyond that we should try to ensure that it doesn't get too complicated as you said. I am happy to think about this and discuss it more, though! πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator

    We have quite a lot of #vocal-only videos (clearly chimps vocalizing, but nobody to see). They are part of the official chimps list now. Should we count with #0_chimp or do not add a tag at all?

    (Same goes for offcamera tool use.)

    Posted

  • maureenmccarthy by maureenmccarthy scientist, moderator

    Sorry @AnLand I only just saw this question. We had discussed this and thought it might be confusing to use a #0_chimp hashtag since using #0_chimp and #chimp hashtags together seem somehow contradictory. If there is a #chimp hashtag and a #vocal-only hashtag, those should be a good indicator that chimps are present but do not appear on camera, and therefore there are not any chimps to count in that video. Thanks!

    Posted

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator in response to maureenmccarthy's comment.

    @Silke_Atmaca is doing this for the chimp count e.g. " #0_chimp #1_chimp " - that's why I had the idea. And it would sort #vocalization from #vocal-only as apparently we are using now both tags for the video at the same time. I did understand the rule here differently, but it seems what we should do it use both at the same time. (So, I did it wrong in the past with only using #vocal-only.)

    I am still a bit unhappy about the vocal tags, because I am still missing the case: there is an animal seen (maybe even a chimp or baboon), but the vocalization is off camera (by same species). I would like to make that clearer, as both tags - for me - don't transport that message. Especially with the baboons, but sometimes also with chimps, the individuals are reacting to that vocalization not "seen" and that's interesting.

    Posted

  • Silke_Atmaca by Silke_Atmaca scientist, moderator

    Hi @AnLand - as far as I can remember, I've only used #0_chimp once. I discussed the matter with @maureenmccarthy shortly afterwards and subsequently removed the tag. You must have come across my post within this short time window. I am sorry for any confusion this may have caused! πŸ˜•

    Posted

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator in response to Silke_Atmaca's comment.

    Thanks! OK, I deleted mine.

    Posted

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator

    I was going to proceed with this task to tag the chimp_count and recognized that the #0_chimp tag is now re-introduced, e.g., ACP000fpgt. Shall I add it now or not?

    (I actually think - as I did before - that the tag makes a lot of sense, especially with the #vocal-only videos and for videos in those we've seen chimp(s) before within the same minute and volunteers tag them because of that knowledge or audio, but not visual assessment.)

    Posted

  • MimiA by MimiA scientist, moderator

    There is no problem with using them at all πŸ˜ƒ but no one should feel the need that they have to do this to contribute to the new guidelines maureen outlined above either πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • Boleyn by Boleyn moderator

    Hi I noticed some videos tagged with =_chimp. (edit: should of course be #0_chimp) Is this a new official tag we can use for videos where we hear chimps but don't see them? πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • AnLand by AnLand moderator

    As this is a change in policy and has been discussed before with a different outcome (here), I'll let the science team confirm and explain.

    (But, yes, you're right.)

    Posted

  • MimiA by MimiA scientist, moderator

    hi @Boleyn

    Sorry if there is some confusion! From the discussion @AnLand posted we said we didnt think it was needed but that it was ok to use if you wanted - so now we see its usefulness and we want to officially use it too πŸ˜‰

    but YES exactly! we are using #0_chimp to help us with figuring out which videos have chimps in them that we can actually see and those that have circumstantial evidence for chimp presence.

    When you just hear a vocalization you can also tag as #vocal-only, that gives us some extra info on what's going on in the clip πŸ˜ƒ

    in addition to your vocaliazation only example, we were thinking to also use #0_chimp when you see a chimp in one clip, and then maybe it climbs up a tree and then in the next clip you see some branches rustling so you sorta know its a chimp, but actually if you had ONLY seen that clip you wouldn't know what it was.

    I guess you all see what an evolution chimpandsee is for us scientists! we are constantly learning and growing and getting new ideas (especially from the awesome community here!) and trying new things out and see where they go. Citizen science is certainly not an exact science πŸ˜‰

    So always ask us and question us whenever you see something new pop up, just like you did! We're always happy to share our ideas with you and get your feedback πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted

  • Boleyn by Boleyn moderator

    Thanks @MimiA that makes sense. I added it to my copy/paste hashtag-list πŸ˜ƒ

    Posted