SN Need help regarding bad report

[R Lopez]

Hello,
I recently made a report of flooding of 3.5 inches, which was marked as a bad report due to the supposed flood criteria being 4 inches. I am very new to spotter network, and was never given any indication that 4 inches was the minimum required depth for flooding. I even checked before making the report under reporting guidelines, and based on that, my report should have been acceptable as it states a minimum depth of 2 inches. Supposedly it stated that the updates requirement was 4 inches per the latest newsletter, though I am confused as to why this wasn’t directed to me before making the report, or at the very least updating the reporting guidelines. I’ve only been on the site for a few weeks and it’s just a bit frustrating that I’ve already got bad report votes on my report, as I don’t think I could have known. There didn’t seem to be anything mentioning that I had to check the past newsletters (I don’t even know how often these occur), so just wish that could have been brought to my attention sooner. Is there anything I can do about it, and are there any other guidelines which have not been updated under “reporting guidelines” that I should be aware of?

 

[Jeff Duda]

I wouldn't worry about it. One bad report (especially from a new spotter) shouldn't cause you any admin punishment or penalties. I suggest you should look at it more as a correction for future reporting.

I am not part of the SN committee on reviewing reports, and I'm not sure how many of them are active here, so you may not end up getting a better response. Just do your best in the future and heed the recommendations made from your report reviews.

 

[R Lopez]

Thanks for the reply, will do in the future. Only thing I am more worried about at this point is if there are other guidelines that aren’t shown that have been recently changed that I may need to be aware of, as the current guidelines aren’t updated.

 

[Jason N]

I agree with Jeff, don't be hard on yourself, I have submitted a lot of reports to them over the years and I have found they themselves have been inconsistent with their own definitions. for instance, flooding, if there was standing water in the road going up to the tops of tires on cars, well that's a legitimate report to share regardless of what baseline conditions are set for a flood report, so sometimes they would kick it out and sometimes they wouldn't. A spotter is not always going to have the time to make a "qualified" report as well keeping spotter safety in mind. If you report things hours later, well sure it's nice to have, but it's all historical at that point, (yes, the reports do feed into databases that NWS/SPC uses, so I understand there has to be some quality control to support after actions and records).

I think that's why Mping became in some ways more valuable over Spotter Network, due to the simplcitiy and speed of making reports. Dont get me wrong, Mping has some of its own issues, but I think the Spotter Network would be much more benefited by their own version of Mping where they can pre-build in the requirements of a "good" report, and the spotter see's them, clicks it, sends it. That way, they can move away from these antiquated report styles where a so-called "body" decides its good or no good, making people who actually have good experience not feel like imbeciles for making a mistake, or, send a report that may have been made on the fly with less than ideal circumstances to try and deliver crucial critical information, and then someone tells you, "your report doesn't qualify our standards later on. Well, then help the community at large out by pre-creating the qualified reports so spotters can just choose them, and then qualify information with comments.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

 

[Randy Jennings]

I think that's why Mping became in some ways more valuable over Spotter Network

I need to confirm, but I seem to remember a NWS Met telling me that MPing reports took about 15 mins to get into the NWS system. Also given the anonymous nature of MPing reports, I am not sure they are taken as seriously by some NWS Mets.

 

[Jason N]

I need to confirm, but I seem to remember a NWS Met telling me that MPing reports took about 15 mins to get into the NWS system. Also given the anonymous nature of MPing reports, I am not sure they are taken as seriously by some NWS Mets.

I want to say you're correct about that and my comment about Mping having its own issues was centered on that, but I think NWS could solve that if they emulate the reporting style with its tested spotters. The bottom line is, they need to update their reporting methods to something Akin to Mping and I think that would reduce the need for committee's to sit and argue with spotters over quality reports vs. bad ones.

 

[rdale]

Just to clarify - the NWS is not part of SpotterNetwork. It’s run by volunteers. They were able to work an agreement to get SN reports into NWSChat, which is why it’s clearly the best system for reporting, but it takes someone with coding knowledge and time to make changes

 

[Jason N]

Also, I want to be fair. The system has improved over the years, just not at a pace that I think keeps up with other technologies and its probably in part due to whatever its budget is, assuming it even has its own direct budget, but I would assume so. I found it interesting that SKYWARN and SN dont seem to speak the same language. you can be SKYWARN certified, and have to pass a SN "test", like to me, they should be one in the same with the same core teachings so everyone that's SKYWARN certified can just submit reports through SN. it just feels like duplication of effort and I've seen posts that some WFO sites "do things differently" .

 

[Jason N]

Just to clarify - the NWS is not part of SpotterNetwork. It’s run by volunteers. They were able to work an agreement to get SN reports into NWSChat, which is why it’s clearly the best system for reporting, but it takes someone with coding knowledge and time to make changes

right and that's a good point

 

[rdale]

whatever its budget is

The current SN budget is made up of all the signup costs that users pay combined.

So... $0.00

SKYWARN certified can just submit reports through SN.

The issue is that there is no such thing as a Skywarn certification... To be "certified" generally you have to provide evidence of your qualifications, training, education, and pass a test every x number of years while showing evidence of continuing education.

Skywarn is a 2-hr basic presentation on cloud structures. All are welcome and the test isn't formal. SN at least makes you take a little bit of a test to make sure you're aware of basics.

 

[Jason N]

hey I have no problem being tested, I just figured, if you want consistent, reliable, field reports, and a system to import them from officially trained sources, you'd think SKYWARN , the NWS, or any affiliations, to agree on a standard "official" process so that any reports coming from any source would be considered reliable, and to at least have a reporting method that was prebuilt with reports that were already going to be accepted once someone visibly saw them occurring. (these are just my opinions in the spirit of discussion and what would be nice, lol )

but youre right, I took the SKYWARN test yearrrrsss ago, and I agree it was super basic. I took the SN test, yes it was better than skywarns by far.

 

[John Wetter]

Thanks @R Lopez for the information. This discrepancy was corrected on our website last week.

It takes three different reports receiving three ‘bad’ markings from reviewers to impact your status at SN.

Using our preferred client for submitting reports, RadarScope, there are prompts describing the report types and explanations. This isn’t as easy to do in other methods of submitting data.

Regarding the login, testing, etc. As @rdale mentioned, Skywarn is not actually an organization, it is a concept, used across the country. There is no central data store and the NWS is prohibited from sharing any information. This is a bit “inside baseball” but where we end up.

 

[R Lopez]

Thanks @R Lopez for the information. This discrepancy was corrected on our website last week.

It takes three different reports receiving three ‘bad’ markings from reviewers to impact your status at SN.

Using our preferred client for submitting reports, RadarScope, there are prompts describing the report types and explanations. This isn’t as easy to do in other methods of submitting data.

Regarding the login, testing, etc. As @rdale mentioned, Skywarn is not actually an organization, it is a concept, used across the country. There is no central data store and the NWS is prohibited from sharing any information. This is a bit “inside baseball” but where we end up.

Thank you for the response. Yeah, it ended up getting 4 bad report votes. I assume there’s nothing now I can do about it though? It is after all still a bit frustrating to have my status affected because of something not within my control, but if there’s nothing more I can do I understand