Icon Display Changes Coming to Spotter Network!!

[Tim Shriver]

Let me instill some common sense into this

No NWS office is going to pop a tornado warning on a cell that doesn't look capable of having a tornado -- based on a single report. Even if it came from your group, they just aren't going to pull the trigger. If they get two reports, then it's another story.

Note that Tyler said "bad report" - not "intended to cause malice" report.



No, it's not saying that at all. Have you ever tried to estimate wind speeds in a storm? Everyone is horrible at it. So technically they are "bad" reports. People should only give the conditions that lead them to estimate those winds -- but my guess is that when your spotter calls in E60mph winds you pass that right along to the NWS. You are relaying a bad report... but I'd rather have a bad estimate, which I can go back and interrogate using SN, than nothing.



That's not what you said a post prior... You said specifically in the first line that you check the report for accuracy.

This is a response covering rdales and Tylers postings:

Terms are getting crossed up some, I agree.

catsup - ketchup

I did say accuracy, but you can increase accuracy with the methods we use. The method is vetting reports submitted to us for relaying to the NWS.

Examples: during an event last summer, we had a unknown ham radio in a report of a rotating wall cloud in one of our counties.
At first he gave his position on the East side of the county, 5 minutes
later his location changed to the West of the county.
Not possible. We questioned him further and it became clear that either
he didn't know his butt from a whole in the ground or it was not a real report.
We did not submit the report.

Spotters must use a preset reference points that is selected by folks at
our WFO here. These points are marked on the radar screen, both
at the NWS and our base GR programs.
If a spotter turns in a report of hail, gives the reference point, but the radar shows clear sky above that position and nothing near them then we vet the
report further. Perhaps correcting the location information or discrediting the report.

But, lets say someone we do not know comes in with a report, sounds shaky, stumbles during the report, does not use the preset reference points but accuracy street directions and says they see a lowering, we question them further to see if it is a tornado, a funnel cloud, a wall cloud, if so is it rotating etc. Not only allowing us to "hear" from that if they are actually seeing something and what it is.

So by assisting, vetting and verifying the report (as much as we can) we
improve our "accuracy of reports". This is tracked at the WFO.

You do not have to be a Met to see clear skies or that something in the report is not correct.

You may think you are helping your WFO by passing on any and almost all reports but during an outbreak it will become an issue.
When the NWS sends out a team and they can not find any sign of a tornado or the reported weather event it causes folks to doubt you. They may not say it but it is there.

Our vetting of reports (as much as we can) increases out accuracy which
allows the local EMM to trust us and to act even before a warning is issued.
To me that is a major plus in increasing lead time on getting some sort of warning out to the public.

No report is better then a bad report, simply means know what you are looking at before you report it.
It seems the SN test is an attempt to do this, so why shouldn't we?

Tyler, I think your test is a good thing and the fact that it is there
indicates you are doing the very thing you do not like us doing
Otherwise you would not limit access to the SN reporting system by
using a pretest screening method.


Yes, we need to be sure that we did not hold up a report simply
because we 'think" it is bad. If there is any question we pass it along
but indicate we are seeking further information. Leaving it to the Mets
as rdale said.

But it is the Mets that are training us, instructing us and providing us
with training to do some of the vetting and removing some of the unneeded
static that occurs during a severe weather event fire fight.

We may have to agree to disagree on some points, but in the end all
have demonstrated a desire and willingness to further their ideas for
the sake of saving lives.

This is good.


Tim

 

[Tyler Allison]

Tyler, I think your test is a good thing and the fact that it is there
indicates you are doing the very thing you do not like us doing

Yes, you rightfully conclude we are attempting to do the same thing. But you incorrectly conclude that the methods are equally successful/accurate in accomplishing the goal. (goal = vetting the reporter)

Otherwise you would not limit access to the SN reporting system by
using a pretest screening method.

What other method do you suggest of "vetting" the reporter since I've already shown that validating the report itself is not possible?

-Tyler

 

[John Wetter]

One point missed in the above is that Tim, you will still be able to see the placefiles or google map of people on screen, not passing or taking the test won't stop you from viewing it. You will not be able to report or be seen on screen though personally if you haven't taken the test.

I see on the Milwaukee area skywarn web page you have a link to eSpotter. So, if they accept eSpotter, they have the infrastructure to accept the SN reports, besides via NWSChat.

 

[Tim Shriver]

One point missed in the above is that Tim, you will still be able to see the placefiles or google map of people on screen, not passing or taking the test won't stop you from viewing it. You will not be able to report or be seen on screen though personally if you haven't taken the test.



I see on the Milwaukee area skywarn web page you have a link to eSpotter. So, if they accept eSpotter, they have the infrastructure to accept the SN reports, besides via NWSChat.

I took it that if you do not take the test that the icons would
be removed. If I am incorrect and this is not so, then that is good.

"Effective April 15th, anyone who has not completed the training module and scored an 80% or higher on the test will NOT be displayed in our feeds."

I have taken the test/passed so my icon remains and I can see others,
but a spotter of ours, who did not take or pass the test, their icon goes away. even though they will be using other means of submitting storm
reports and not SN.

This is up to Tyler what he wishes to do with his system. I thank
him for the years he has allowed us to use it.

Like I said, I will present this to our group and yes I will encourage
them to take the test and I am sure all will do well on it.
But I am sure I will find some that did not take the test, will be out
in the field during a severe weather event and I will loose the ability to track them on GR products. Thats all.

While I am on the Board of Advisers for MKE-Skywarn they
are not the group that I hold the office of COO with.
My group is MidWest SSTRC. (www.midwestsstrc.org)
I know Skip very well over at MKE and he does a great job
as does his crew.

MidWest also has a link to SN and will continue too.
Just because "I" disagree with someone or an idea/comment
doesn't mean I will zap them off our webpage.


Thanks,,

Tim

 

[Tim Shriver]

Yes, you rightfully conclude we are attempting to do the same thing. But you incorrectly conclude that the methods are equally successful/accurate in accomplishing the goal. (goal = vetting the reporter)

What other method do you suggest of "vetting" the reporter since I've already shown that validating the report itself is not possible?

-Tyler

The combination of training folks and vetting reports does work.

Gathering intelligence and vetting said intelligence (real-time or not) is a standard operating procedure in many organizations, not to mention the armed forces. So it is not a radical idea nor unproven.

Thanks,

Tim

 

[Tyler Allison]

The combination of training folks and vetting reports does work.

Gathering intelligence and vetting said intelligence (real-time or not) is a standard operating procedure in many organizations, not to mention the armed forces. So it is not a radical idea nor unproven.

Thanks,

Tim

We are still talking passed each other.

You are _not_ vetting reports. You can't "vet" the report. Or if you think you can, please tell me how you are doing it....remember this must be real-time. We are already attempting to assess the quality of the report after the fact.

How can I vet the person without requiring training?

I'm open to ideas, honest...we just don't know how else to do this.

-Tyler

 

[Tim Shriver]

We are still talking passed each other.

You are _not_ vetting reports. You can't "vet" the report. Or if you think you can, please tell me how you are doing it....remember this must be real-time. We are already attempting to assess the quality of the report after the fact.

How can I vet the person without requiring training?

I'm open to ideas, honest...we just don't know how else to do this.

-Tyler

The person doing the vetting, of coarse, must trained
on what to listen or look for.

Vetting allows us to get at least some idea of the person
submitting the report.

It is part of Situational Awareness in real time.

How you may do this on SN may differ some to how it is done
via voice. But in the end we both want the best product to
hand to the WFO's and public that we can.

I think we are saying almost the same thing but stuck
on the terms and the fine lines. I think..



Tim

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Tim, if you have spotters that can't be tracked using SN because they don't take or pass the SN qualifying test, have you considered using another free GPS tracking application, like Google Latitude? Can that be integrated as a GR placefile (if it hasn't already been done)?

 

[Josh VandenTop]

I don't see the problem with having people take the test, if they are properly trained they should be able to pass the test with flying colors, and if they can't pass the test then I would see that as an idication that maybe they need to be retrained....just my opinion.

 

[Tim Shriver]

Tim, if you have spotters that can't be tracked using SN because they don't take or pass the SN qualifying test, have you considered using another free GPS tracking application, like Google Latitude? Can that be integrated as a GR placefile (if it hasn't already been done)?

I am sure, once this is presented that some will take the test, pass and
be included. But there will be those that will not even bother to take the
test and thus, as base ops, loose one method we used to track them.
There are some that do not feel they need to use the SN reporting system
as they have other prescribed com methods available. So they simply drop it.
I like the test in order to report weather events via SN. This is good.
I just wish it wasn't tied to the SN tracking is all.


In the scheme of life it is not a big deal, just change.

Tim

 

[Jason Foster]

I just wish there was a train icon...that's all I'm saying....

 

[Shane Adams]

I took the damn test and I could've written it. I don't see what the point of 45 pages of this was about. If you're not using SN for reporting, then why? Attention? Take the damn test.

This is but another classic example of the stubborn nature of HAM folk and why it's a huge player in the whole spotter/chaser war and more importantly, why reporting via HAM is a waste of time if you ain't "one of da boyz".

 

[Tim Shriver]

I took the damn test and I could've written it. I don't see what the point of 45 pages of this was about. If you're not using SN for reporting, then why? Attention? Take the damn test.

This is but another classic example of the stubborn nature of HAM folk and why it's a huge player in the whole spotter/chaser war and more importantly, why reporting via HAM is a waste of time if you ain't "one of da boyz".

Shane, skimming through a thread will get ya everytime

First, we are not "ham folks" as stated early. We just got into
ham about 4 years ago. Before that we used cell phones and business band
systems. So please, know us before attempting to bash us. BTW, there
are some damn good ham groups out there that you just offended greatly.
But at the same time I agree that some ham groups just like things
the way it has been. So be it. But MidWest is not one of them.

Shane, if you knew me at all, you would know just how silly you sound
saying if you ain't "one of da boyz" in reference to me or MidWest.


I took the test, as also stated and will present SN to our group
and leave it up to them. But for the reason of using the SN spotter
tracking and not the reporting system. Thus the issue on having to take a test for something we will not use.
We have too many other, more direct or just as direct alternatives.

Yes, they can submit a report via SN if they have no other direct means
of doing so for "severe" weather events. But I am sure either their cell phone or radio will be working most of the time.

Non-severe events are sent via eSpotter.

For spotters not part of a spotter group (ham or non-ham)
For severe weather reports we use in this order:

1 Local WFO 800 number
2. Call 911
3. New national 800 number
4 eSpotter

For spotters that are part of a group they should use
what the group specifies, which is approved by the
WFO and its support staff.
This is per our WCM.

eSpotter is used for non-severe weather or damage
reports.


As for this statement
"huge player in the whole spotter/chaser war".

I could careless as it appears someone is just attempting
to stir the pot as this has nothing to do with the so called
"spotter/chaser war".


It's in the tool box if our members want it or need it.



Tim

 

[Bart_Comstock]

The reason why it is better to have to have taken the test to have your icon show up, even if you do not report, is so that when someone who is either: a) a member of the media, b) a member of the NWS, or c) a member of a local EM/Skywarn/other local spotting/ emergency management group sees the icon on the radar they can with confidence reach out to that user via the displayed contact information and ask them what they are seeing to either confirm what they are seeing on radar or to help confirm the accuracy of another report from that area that may have been submitted by any available means.

This is just another way to vet the users and goes in line with the fact that actual names will be displayed instead of just screen names.

SN is not a tracking tool, it is a reporting tool with a tracking feature, to simply use it for tracking purposes only is misusing it. It would be like using a ham radio as just a scanner. Why have the radio if you aren't going to take the time to get a call sign and then why take the time to get the call sign if you are never going to key up on said radio?

This is a great move that is to further streamline and professionalize SN and I support it.

I simply can't see how someone who supposedly takes so many hours of training each month finds it so bother some to just add a onetime test that is a breeze to their curriculum.

It isn't like Tyler is demanding we all add lightbars to our vehicles if we have a SN icon!

 

[Tim Shriver]

"The reason why it is better to have to have taken the test to have your icon show up, even if you do not report, is so that when someone who is either: a) a member of the media, b) a member of the NWS, or c) a member of a local EM/Skywarn/other local spotting/ emergency management group sees the icon on the radar they can with confidence reach out to that user via the displayed contact information and ask them what they are seeing to either confirm what they are seeing on radar or to help confirm the accuracy of another report from that area that may have been submitted by any available means."


First, we discourage the media from contacting or being with
our mobile spotters during an ongoing severe weather event, unless
arranged ahead of time. They listen and can give the base
a call if they wish.
We have had problems in the past when the caravan following
our mobile spotters had become a concern.
When your group is a 501c3 corporation you also have to watch
things a little closer as far as PR.

We have great relations with the local
news folks. We are lucky to have the stations and staffs
that we do.

But then we can't stop them from following us.

You do have a good point, but then we would treat that spotters report, who is still an unknown to us, as we would someone without the testing.

Not a member or known to us we look at the report a little closer.

If they show they have SN training that is a feather in their cap, but
we would continue to vet the report.
Like I said we have only rejected two or three reports in 5 or more years.

We question all reports to some degree, no matter who it is. Everyone
makes mistakes.


Yes, the icon/testing might give you some small insight into the persons
abilities in some situations. But in the end we would treat the report
as we would any other. Does it makes since? Do they seem to know
what they are talking about etc etc.

Point for SN!

The one idea that would greatly enhance the program
is if somehow SN could show other types of training/certifications
they hold. Confirm-able items such as the FEMA courses
IS-100, IS-700 and IS-271.


Some solutions might work better for others then it does for you or us.

This is something that is true with almost everything in life.


I think this dog has been beat to death now.

Tim