Wow, a lot of reaction to first our "fun" zoo-comparison analysis, and now my explanations of it. Let me try to respond to the main points:
So, basically; a zoo like Walsrode which is often viewed as one of the best zoos in Europe wouldn't be ranked very high in your listing because it hasn't got a complete collection (only birds except for 2 species of mammals IIRC)? What about Burgers', a zoo which lacks in reptiles and amphibians. Yet many, many people view at as the top zoo in Europe. Would that also be the same problem? Final exemple, Nuremberg; which welfare-wise might be one of the top top zoos in Europe but although their collection is expanding, they still cruelly lack in smaller animals. I still view it as one of the zoos I'd prefer the most if I visited it, I thin. Is that view flawed?
Yes and I am of the same opinion. We always criticize tremendous zoos for some of their bad exhibits. Whether it be Tierpark Berlin and the Alfred-Brehm Haus or Zürich and the Ape House. Most people rank them lower than they would love to because of that. Looking at Omaha's gallery, some exhibits are downright awful in size, honestly. So why should we criticize TP Berlin and Zürich but not Omaha, how is that fair? It's not because a zoo is great that its substandard exhibits are justified, they are absolutely not and as long as they still exist, the criticism seems nothing but fair.
Should we take your study to the letter, as a sort of Bible of ranking which we cannot disagree with. If a study tried to rank American zoos as you do (which is nonsense to me honestly, I'm not trying to be rude; I really like the work you've put into this but as I said it's just sound so subjective) and found Bronx was ranked higher or lower, would you accept said ranking because they used different categories (maybe more?) or are you convinced your ranking is the only true, correct one?
We did not find our final results of 1.San Diego, 2.Omaha, 3.St.Louis, 4.Columbus, 5.Bronx to be overall convincing because we do acknowledge that our analysis was not perfect or totally complete. But what we did find to be convincing was that San Diego is #1 -- because it was SO FAR ahead of the other zoos, and that Bronx is (at best) #5 because it was SO FAR behind the other 4 zoos.
As for the zoos you asked about, I believe Burgers would do great by our analysis. If it's weak in Reptiles/Amphibians, who cares? That's only 1 category out of 28. I also believe Nuremburg would do quite well. Both of these two are very "complete" and high quality zoos, which are the main things our analysis was looking for. But you are correct that Walsrode would rate low by our analysis, and so be it. It may be a great bird zoo, but it's just not a real complete zoo. It's a specialized zoo, like Apenhuel. I'd love to go see these specialized facilities someday, but neither should be considered among the very best "zoos" in Europe. You may disagree, but that's just my opinion.
Your critique of Omaha (and Berlin Tierpark) is calling for us to use the "Weakest Link" method of comparison. That is, look for the worst exhibit in each zoo, and then compare those worst factors -- and then whichever zoo has the "least worst" exhibit wins! With this method, an otherwise very average zoo -- with no bad exhibits -- would be ranked very highly.
Is this not a bit like cheating on a test? If an exhibit or species has not been memorable enough to make an impression the first rating, why should it be factored in in a second?
But they are weighted by nature! You have seven mammal-specific categories. Yet there are only two for birds, one each for invertebrates and fish, and reptiles and amphibians aren’t each deemed important enough to have their own category! You have thousands and thousands lumped into one or two categories. Yet elephants, a group of three species, get their own rating. Bears, a group of eight species, get their own rating. Great apes, a group of seven species (of course excluding humans) get their own rating. And what of the zoos that don’t have animals in some categories? San Diego doesn’t have a single nocturnal exhibit, nor does Saint Louis. And what exactly is supposed to be a “bonus animal superstar”??
We didn't have any "doubts" about our analysis, but we don't claim it's perfect. But I did know the analysis would be controversial because some folks just don't like hearing the Bronx Zoo is no longer a top-rated zoo. It's still pretty good, but no longer in the class with San Diego, Omaha, or St. Louis. And no, it was not "cheating" to re-rank the zoos if we were reminded of some new exhibit or animal the zoo has added, especially if it was added in the 7-10 years since we last visited that zoo. This was just making our rankings more accurate.
You all may not like our 28 categories, but we picked them based on what we believe a wide variety of zoo visitors are looking for when they go the zoo. Consider the time they spend when in the zoo. Don't you think most visitors spend about 7 times as much time looking at mammals when compared to reptiles or fish? That's why there are more mammal categories -- because more people want to see the mammals than the birds, reptiles, or fish. Elephants, great apes, and bears get their own categories because these are THE animals more people want to see than any others. Obviously, there are exceptions, but the majority of zoo visitors gravitate to these particular animals much more than others.
The Bonus Animal Superstars is just the name we gave to the animals we all know are the biggest crowd-drawers: giant pandas, koalas, manatees, dolphins, and a few others, such as Tasmanian devils, etc. These are the animals you will see on the zoo billboards, trying to draw folks into the zoo. These are the animals people will go out of their way to come see. (Note that the Bronx Zoo is very weak in this category!)
though it was never said outright, the posts definitely seemed to imply that SDZ is a better zoo than the Bronx and others. They acknowledge that it is there opinion but they imply that their opinion is better than others as they have quantified it in their own extensive way.
What we are saying is show us a better way of comparing the zoos! Thylo lists a long list of animal facts and figures which he believes show Bronx is comparable with, or better than, San Diego. But first, he never shows any method of summarizing his points, and secondly, he seems to me to be "cherry-picking", finding a few places where Bronx excels and basing his whole conclusion on them. But all of Thylo's pro-Bronx points are badly overwhelmed by the much stronger and more conclusive points made by SnowLeopard in post #207 (and also by Sooty in post #147).
However, one variable that may not have been “statistically accounted for” but should probably be considered is the overall sense of momentum and progress of a zoo. San Diego and Omaha (in particular) have been juggernauts over the past decade, adding major new exhibits and features at a remarkable pace. The Bronx has not; its last major addition is now ten years old. Had it maintained the furious pace of improvement it saw from 1985 (Jungleworld) to 2003 (Tiger Mountain), this conversation would be very different.
I completely see your point, and I really believe our analysis covers the momentum, as the new "juggernaut" exhibits at San Diego, Omaha, and Columbus are the main reasons they have passed up Bronx. But I would not want to give an ranking for "Momentum" and honestly, this sounds very much like Sheridan's way of ranking, as he gives points to zoos for "Vision", a factor based on his personal interviews with the zoo directors.
Part, a big part, of the controversy of his posts is explained on who his rankings are aimed at- zoo visitors. And by that I infer casual zoo visitors. Who probably are in the very high 90% of zoo visitors. The kind that might go to Memphis to see a giant panda but not go out of their way to have seen a Sumatran rhino at Cincinnati. I would doubt there are more than a handful of casual visitors who have ever even come to this site, much less posted.
Exactly!! I fully agree that our analysis method is not aimed at "zoo nerds" or ZooChat regulars. It is aimed totally at the casual zoo visitors, and that is what our 28 categories is aimed at.
You note that by including a wide variety of categories you hope to incorporate all visitors in your analysis (ie fans of birds to fans of big cats). Agreed. My concern though is on how visitors evaluate their experience. To use several anecdotal examples, I visited a zoo with a family last year who lamented the fact that in several exhibits animals were making use of hiding spots in their exhibit and were thus not visible to guests. This family member felt that no such hiding places should exist to ensure that animals were always on view. On a similar note, a regular at my local zoo complained to me on multiple occasions that the snow leopard exhibit was too large, making it difficult to the find the cats. This individual told me they preferred a significantly smaller exhibit so that they could see the animals easier. I disagreed on both of these examples, primarily on the grounds of animal welfare (a stance I think most on here would side with).
Good question! I (we) try to be balanced between having animals in sight for the paying customers versus the animal welfare aspects of giving them plenty of room. But I'm not a big fan of "hiding places" for animals. Years ago I really liked Tucson's Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, but from my last two visits there, my impression of the place has gone downhill, as I hardly saw any of their larger animals -- they were all hiding! I'm a fan of the methods that zoos use to bring animals up to visitor windows -- heated rocks or putting their food near the visitors.I concede that "some" hiding places are fine, but ASDM seems to take this to an extreme, at the expense of the visitors. Just my opinion.
I think we have to disagree on that, I still think the statistics are used in such a way that you can't use if for anything else than personal use and most surely not say that Bronx *is* the #5 zoo in the US, that can be your opinion but is does not hold any more value than others thinking otherwise.
I also think that many people would rate exhibits completely different, I personally would not care too much for whether they are visually pleasing or well themed, which may partly be a cultural thing.
It still implies a *complete* collection with animals from all continents is a must, which is an assumption open for debate.
Additionally the Madagascar section seems to be littered by enclosures that were outdated by the time it was opened (and 20 years ago). I am pretty sure that if Lied Jungle were to have been in Europe it would consistently rank well below Burgers' Zoo, Zurich, Randers, Leipzig and Emmen as the first 2 actually look like a rainforest and the latter are much better in terms of animal holdings.
Sorry that we disagree, lintworm. Again, I'm NOT bragging about my credentials, but I know that my knowledge of and experience in statistics is strong enough that I know what I'm talking about. I now teach statistics at a major university. This doesn't mean our analysis is perfect or unflawed, but again, show me a better way to compare zoos! We personally are comfortable enough with our analysis to believe we've confirmed that San Diego is very deserving of the title, America's #1 zoo, and that Bronx has fallen several notches below that level. If you want to believe something else, fine. But I'd suggest you are doing so merely based on personal preference, not on any objective analysis.
You are correct that many people rate exhibits very differently, and even though it was only 3 of us, the 3 of us rate exhibits quite different from each other.
Yes, a "complete" collection of animals will give a zoo the highest rankings, but it's not a "must", and certainly they don't have to be from "all continents". You could have zero animals from Asia, Australia, and South America (like North Carolina) and still get a high rating -- if they're complete and high quality in all of the other 25 categories.
As for Omaha, their Expedition Madagascar opened in 2010, not 20 years ago. And I think the Lied Jungle is still one of the very best rain forest exhibits in the world! I'd only rate Liepzig's Gondawanaland as for sure better. In fact, I think Gondawanaland is the world's very best zoo exhibit -- anywhere! While Burgers Bush is also very, very good, you definitely see a lot more animals in the Lied Jungle. As for Zurich's rain forest, it's a tremendous re-creation of a Madagascan jungle, but what animals do you see in there? A few birds, chameleons, and if you're lucky, 2 or 3 lemurs. Nothing else. Once again, visitor experience!
