Another moron on Spotter Network

[terra seright]

I just looked it up on SN and it shows that she made a lengthy false report in Tx the night before. 9 Red flags. I don't recall ever seeing that many red flags on a single report at SN.

Now, I don't get it. We all go after these storms for many reasons. What is the point to making false reports like this? This seems deliberate, and could be considered malicious.

 

[Matt Hughes]

We were on the same storm and couldn't believe the report. It was more than mildly amusing but glad she was spoken to.

 

[Scott Bell]

I was observing this storm as well, and when the report appeared on Spotter Network, I had to read it 3 times to make sure I hadn't misread it It was a nice storm and a fun chase, but I wasn't expecting to see a report pop up on the screen.

To experienced chasers, it was painfully obvious (yes, painful) that there was nothing on the ground, but to a fairly newer chaser that is WANTING to see something, and looking from an odd angle (her report came from south of the storm moving due north) as someone else mentioned, I could see a mis-interpretation occurring. There's no need to dump on her. We've all made mistakes identifying things....it's part of the learning process.

As for changing how Spotter Network works, it sounds like NWS is used to filtering through false reports all the time, so there isn't a need to filter them at the Spotter Network level by removing access for all those "not deemed worthy." It's just that now we get to see these false reports and are going to have to learn to live with them as well. I would guess that adding in a complicated application for Spotter Network access would be impossible for Tyler to keep up with.

 

[Chris Engleman]

Hey Tyler, Can you implement a radius feature that will either SMS, email, etc any tornado reports within a 10-15 mile radius of a user? If user A reports a tornado, and user D and E are within 12 miles of that report they get a message for confirmation as they may not be monitoring the SN feed? It would add duplicate reports into the system but will confirm or deny the report.

Just an idea.

Chris

 

[Chad Cowan]

I'm not saying she's a moron for thinking it was a wedge, I think she's a moron for reporting it. It's a stretch but I guess it could appear to be a tornado to an untrained eye, and like Chris Novy said above, given that we were under a tornado watch, she was expecting to see a tornado. Regardless of what she thought it was, she has no business making reports via SN.

It's crap like this that undermines the credibility of ALL Spotter Net users and reports. I can't blame the NWS WCM's for not believing the accurate reports (SEE: 'SN had 15 minute lead time' thread) when all you have to do to join SN is pass that google-able test. I'm thinking something along the lines of what Joey proposed above, with different membership levels. Yes, any system to be implemented that tries to determine the credibility and experience level of a chaser will be subjective and sometimes inaccurate, but there needs to be something to weed out the people who don't have the field experience and knowledge to submit an accurate report. Otherwise, with a large influx of rookie Discovery Channel inspired chasers this season, I can see future SN reports given the same amount of implicit validity as reports submitted via the new NWS Twitter public reports system.

 

[terra seright]

when all you have to do to join SN is pass that google-able test.

I could have googled instead of really reading?? damn, I learned something. And I still don't report on SN.

 

[George Limpert]

There's a big difference between sitting at home on the computer submitting false reports (it has happened before) and making a mistake in the field. I don't know the circumstances of the person who made the particular reports in question, but I think it's too easy to jump to conclusions and assume malicious intent.

I was chasing that day and was looking to the SW at the storms moving up the eastern edge of Lancaster County. I was near Ashland, NE. It was fairly obvious the storms weren't tornadic from my vantage point.

I was chasing with a lot of inexperienced chasers. Our group, totaling 13, had several inexperienced chasers in our three vehicles. It's entirely possible that without the experienced chasers in our group, someone might have gotten excited and thought they saw a funnel cloud. The problem with a training course and exam is that it simply doesn't replicate what you see in the field. There's a difference between watching videos on a computer and watching real storms. It helps to chase with experienced chasers for awhile, but not everyone has that luxury.

If it's obvious that there's intent to mislead people, then there's certainly grounds for considering it criminal activity. But if there's not obvious malicious activity, I don't think it should be nearly as big of a deal. The Valley WFO didn't issue a tornado warning and I suspect the NWS understands the need to be skeptical about reports through some sources. It's definitely important to inform the person who made the report that it was absolutely incorrect. But unless it happens repeatedly after the person is told about it, I don't think it should be treated as seriously as some here would suggest.

Yes, it would have been a big deal if the NWS had issued a tornado warning. The polygon would have likely included portions of Lincoln, which would have affected a lot of people. As it is, no such warning was issued and I think the most important thing is to inform the person who made the incorrect report.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Can you imagine being the people in the homes nearby, trying to decide which of your sentimental items to keep or let go, believing that you only have a minute or two to gather it all up? Then to find out it was false information...i would be hopping mad.

The difference between a confirmed funnel and a confirmed tornado should be negligible from a public safety standpoint. Insert voluminous info about not all tornadoes having complete condensation funnels, etc, etc. I wouldn't really call that a "false report". An example of a false report would have been to have reported that there was no funnel at all or that a wedge had just destroyed Amarillo.

FWIW, most homeowners do not listen to spotter HAM nets or monitor Spotter Network. If the sirens blare or a tornado warning comes up on the boob tube, they either go out on the porch and look for the tornado or head for shelter. Here in Nebraska it's usually the former. I've yet to meet anyone who's reaction to a tornado siren is to fire up SN to verify that it's on the ground. "Oh, nevermind honey -- go back to cooking the steaks, GRLevel 3 only shows a 60 knot gate to gate and Tim Vasquez's only got it three fourths of the way to the ground. I'll be out back, fixing the tractor." I've also never heard of anyone who thought that a tornado was bearing down on them in the next two minutes take the time to run around the house gathering the family heirlooms, but who knows.

 

[beaudodson]

FWIW, most homeowners do not listen to spotter HAM nets or monitor Spotter Network. If the sirens blare or a tornado warning comes up on the boob tube, they either go out on the porch and look for the tornado or head for shelter. Here in Nebraska it's usually the former. I've yet to meet anyone who's reaction to a tornado siren is to fire up SN to verify that it's on the ground. "Oh, nevermind honey -- go back to cooking the steaks, GRLevel 3 only shows a 60 knot gate to gate and Tim Vasquez's only got it three fourths of the way to the ground. I'll be out back, fixing the tractor." I've also never heard of anyone who thought that a tornado was bearing down on them in the next two minutes take the time to run around the house gathering the family heirlooms, but who knows.

Funny you should say this - good reminder that we should not take ourselves TOO seriously.

Yes, it is an important topic and credibility is important.

I have a friend who lost her house in an EF 4 tornado. Her husband was killed. Her 8 year old son had two arms broken. They had taken shelter in the basement.

I spoke with her today and checked up on her after yesterdays storms. In the conversation I asked her how bad it had gotten over there. She said they had high winds and the trees were really thrashing around. (they had 70 mph winds in the town next to her - I assume she had winds that were quite high, as well)

She then said - but I looked outside and didn't think things were bad enough for us to get in the basement!

They were under a warning, as well. And knew it.

That tells me a lot about what people do in order to make a decision on taking shelter. If SHE doesn't get in the basement for a severe thunderstorm with high winds outside then I don't think most people are going to take shelter without some sort of verification - looking out their windows and so on. The Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak summary is a great read on this very topic.

Ok - back to the lady who called in the rain shaft.

 

[cedwards]

I flagged it pretty quick, and Tyler was on top of the situation shortly after (check the review page for the outcome.)

Per a review of NWSChat logs, the office made a few calls to confirm and quickly realized it was false too.

It sounds like the system worked in this case and the report was confirmed to not be a tornado.
This could serve as a learning tool for spotter training. If someone has video that would be helpful in showing newbies another example of what may be misread as a tornado. From most of our viewpoints that picture makes it obvious that this is no large tornado, but for the untrained (or under trained) eye. It may not be so obvious.

 

[Bryan Draper]

find the 4/23/10 report from colleyville texas almost comical.. there was not even a storm on friday...i live in southlake very close to that area storms didn't fire untill after 11pm

 

[Ric Burney]

find the 4/23/10 report from colleyville texas almost comical.. there was not even a storm on friday...i live in southlake very close to that area storms didn't fire untill after 11pm

I had originally assumed she was supposedly 3 miles east of Colleyville also but was corrected and have since determined that there is indeed a very small town named "Coleyville" just west of highway 82/62 between Childress and Paducah. Not that this matters much considering the original report.

 

[Jason Boggs]

I actually sent her a message on Facebook and she claims to have photos of the so called wedge tornado. She said she would send me some photos to look at and I'm just waiting to see what they actually are. Rain bands I would guess...

 

[Robert Dewey]

I actually sent her a message on Facebook and she claims to have photos of the so called wedge tornado. She said she would send me some photos to look at and I'm just waiting to see what they actually are. Rain bands I would guess...

Is she still claiming it to be a wedge, even with all of the evidence against it?

 

[terra seright]

The difference between a confirmed funnel and a confirmed tornado should be negligible from a public safety standpoint. Insert voluminous info about not all tornadoes having complete condensation funnels, etc, etc. I wouldn't really call that a "false report". An example of a false report would have been to have reported that there was no funnel at all or that a wedge had just destroyed Amarillo.

FWIW, most homeowners do not listen to spotter HAM nets or monitor Spotter Network. If the sirens blare or a tornado warning comes up on the boob tube, they either go out on the porch and look for the tornado or head for shelter. Here in Nebraska it's usually the former. I've yet to meet anyone who's reaction to a tornado siren is to fire up SN to verify that it's on the ground. "Oh, nevermind honey -- go back to cooking the steaks, GRLevel 3 only shows a 60 knot gate to gate and Tim Vasquez's only got it three fourths of the way to the ground. I'll be out back, fixing the tractor." I've also never heard of anyone who thought that a tornado was bearing down on them in the next two minutes take the time to run around the house gathering the family heirlooms, but who knows.

True, but I do know some elderly folk who take the sirens/news warnings very seriously...but then my late father, he was funny. He would sit there and watch tv. He said that if a tornado took him, then that's how it was meant to be. lol

Now the lady who slammed into my car last week--I can see her hunting for the baby books and running to the shelter. She hit my truck because she was terrified, but then she was looking right at the tornado.

I do see your point...but it could happen lol.