Another supporter of this principle here too. I still need to check up occasionally for spellings, particularly those hyphenated names that I don't use very often, but at least it means people know what I'm referring to. I'll never forget the confusion I encountered when I really got into birding all those years ago, when I heard of things like Frug Duck, Sprosser, PG Tips etc, and didn't have a clue what people were talking about (that was before the delights of google mind). But there were even more references banded around in hides that I, as a young birder, thought referred to rarities that were in fact common birds - Barwit, Blackwit, Sprawk, Oyk for e.g. that only served to confused. I do now use these names on a regular basis but in my notebook or talking only to people I know will understand. I have seen the same principle in operation at Bird Observatories - in general chat people will often use the slang/abbreviated names but at the log each evening the correct names are always used to ensure clarity. I think the fact that this forum is a resource used by new and experienced alike is good enough reason to at least try to ensure we use the correct names and proper spellings.

I don't contribute much to these fora but I would like to add my virtual vote in favour of using the (currently) correct or official bird names.
I am "guilty" of using all manner of odd abbreviated names in my field notebook and amongst friends but fully support the need for clarity and consistency. My shorthand names could well be baffling to a tyro bird watcher using the forum as a "where to go" resource. I should say that in my more permanent diary, I use the current BTO names.

In terms of the time it takes to type the correct name versus time taken to type your personal or even a well accepted abrieviation is negligible.

John, some good points there and at the end of the day, what you decide to use yourself, is rightly up to you. I agree that the changing of birds names can be a pain but there is an understandable point in the changes with our continued knowledge and understanding of their taxonomy, though I openly admit to struggling to accept the modern changes the likes of Reedling and the dreaded Zitting Cisticola.

Personally, in my notebook I only use BTO codes for ease of writing (its only ever two letters!) but they're hieroglyphics to most. In day to day language with friends I use all sorts of slang and abbreviated birds names but with other than close friends, I stick to their proper names. The whole point for the use of these proper names here, just on this forum though John, is that they are the birds names. It brings order to those names and we all, experienced birders and beginners, know what everyone's taking about. We all get it right and there is no perpetuating of misspelling or misunderstandings. Not everyone knows what GND or GSW is and where do we stop? BX, LSP, RBM, STL? Shell Duck, Sand Erling, Wax Wing, Robb In? Whilst some of the latter remain understandable, why should we change the beautiful and evocative names they already have? My name is Ian but it can be spelt similarly sounding ways of Ean and Iain (and others would seemingly argue other, more offensive names too, it seems ) and yet they're not my name and I wouldn't like it if folk started trying to change it because they thought it just didn't matter. Has society changed so much that we really care so little? Does typing crossbill really take that much more time than xbill, or does the latter just look cool or maybe thought to put you in an elite group who are experienced enough to use such terms? All the thousands of birders who have gone before us have stuck to those names, have enjoyed them and preserved them in literature and yet nowadays, in the days of the Internet, we seemingly want to change them. Why is that?

Well, yes and no.

It's a good idea for searching data, where the Google algorithms (yes, other search engines are available) for re-interpreting language can't keep up

But, just because some official authority has decided that the names I use in my hobby are obsolete, does this really mean I've got to conform to their laws ? Obviously "Hedge Sparrow" must go, but other minor variations are Ok. The vast majority of contributors here are doing it for interest & plain fun. Do I have to go through everything I've ever typed to make sure the names are in vogue ? What's the real, underlying purpose of enforcing a standard if everyone knows what's understood with clarity ?

For example, (and this is really, really not meant with any offence) what if someone accidentally mentioned "Manchester University" when it's currently called "University of Manchester" ? It just doesn't matter.

Ian is absolutely right to maintain standards as the 'wildlife photographers' take over but it's a mixed situation. 'Greater Spotted Woodpecker', 'Chiff Chaff' etc. plain wrong; 'Med Gulls', 'Tufties' etc. how they may go down in the notebook alongside 'BH Gullls', 'BN Grebes' and any other shorthand you want for yourself but other names are not necessarily 'wrong': Missel Thrush was an accepted English spelling and it looks and sounds right. I grew up with Peewits and Hedge Sparrows - also charming. House Sparrows were known as 'Spuggies'. Now that Fan-tailed Warblers have been rebranded 'Zitting Cisticolas' what happens if one turns up here? Generally though any book on bird ID will have the currently accepted spellings and we should use them.