SN rolls out a Ranking system

[Scott Weberpal]

Were those all this year Scott? The data used for ranking started this past winter.

Two of the eight are from this year.

 

[J Tyler]

I'm another one of those guys who has always done his reports via ham, and only this year started using SN for position reporting. I posted in another thread asking whether I should start repeating my reports by text on SN.

Question for Tyler.....What do you think about adding a box we can check that says something like "This was submited by ham radio", or "copy of ham radio report", or ????

BTW, I'm a huge fan of SN. A great public service for both the spotters, weather service, and the county EOC managers.

 

[Dean Baron]

I got 100% on the test on the first and only time I took it. Made one report about sub severe winds to let the NWS know the part of the storm I was on had not produced a severe wind gust in over an hour, and now my reporting priveleges are suspended? I guess to some no report is finally better than some report. If that's the way it's going to be, then good riddence SN.

I should also add that I haven't not done a ton of reporting on SN so this one "red flag" report really brought down my ranking.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Tyler:

Seems like a decent idea. My first "gut" reaction would be this may promote unnecessary reports, like many folks reporting the same event, just to earn the points. Perhaps the system should be based on a ratio rather than actual reports. Also, it will be interesting who this will affect work load for you and others.

That might be true -- but is that a bad thing? 20 duplicate tornado reports simply reinforces that there is, indeed, a tornado happening.

On the other hand, if others report a tornado that they can't see simply because they see someone else reporting it and would like some "points", that's bad.

 

[John Wetter]

I got 100% on the test on the first and only time I took it. Made one report about sub severe winds to let the NWS know the part of the storm I was on had not produced a severe wind gust in over an hour, and now my reporting priveleges are suspended? I guess to some no report is finally better than some report. If that's the way it's going to be, then good riddence SN.

Hi Dean, don't jump to a big conclusion there. Because of the type of system SN is, there has to be minimum standards for reporting and reporting of sub-severe information just would fill up the system with all kinds of useless info with reports like 'not much wind' or 'it hailed'. I agree that sometimes the absence of severe weather in a location is reportable, but not in SN. We've all seen the reports of 'wind', minimum standards have to be set. Yes, yes, yes, sometimes a 'negative' report saying something isn't there can be extremely valuable, but how do you do that in a large system? Saying 'use common sense' just won't cut it unfortunately as we all know that ran out years ago.

So, as you start with two points, then took the training to get two more, and with the bad report, it drops you back to 2 points. You will need to send an e-mail to Tyler to be re-enabled, and I hope that you do.

 

[Jason Foster]

I believe SN is the same as ham radio nets that are SPECIFICALLY under Skywarn where NWS has directed not to report non-severe conditions.

Hell I saw tight rotation today...but by the time I got SN up and ready to make a report the rotation dissipated. The storm was already tornado warned by doppler, so my add would have done nothing to increase the current warning. Will I submit some report directly to NWS after the fact...maybe, for no other reason to verify rotation, but I'm sure the local WFO webpage has a direct report submission page for that kind of thing, which I believe is better for these none severe reports.

Bottomline: don't worry about the ranking system or correcting others on SN...prioritize your reporting as to the importance of life safety and property protection.

 

[Tyler Allison]

Bottomline: don't worry about the ranking system or correcting others on SN...prioritize your reporting as to the importance of life safety and property protection.

probably the best advice in this thread so far

 

[PKohlmeier]

Was just going to make a comment like the last couple.. Yesterday as we were heading out for supper the wife's phone alerted us to a severe storm warning for my county, and since we were heading towards the storm I decided to station myself at a spotting location and see what happened. Well, the storm decided to drop 1/4 inch hail on us for a brief couple seconds and since ARX in their hazardous outlook requested any hail reports for the day I reported it to the NCS. I did not send it through SN even though I considered it as I didn't want to get penalized for sending a report that didn't meet severe criteria even though the local office wanted that. How would I best handle a case like that? As it was that was one of two hail sent in, but they did get a civilian report with hail laying 2" deep, but didn't get my report as they didn't have anyone on their end monitoring the local repeater. (Will be addressed at our next Skywarn meeting).
Thanks ahead of time for clarifying my question.

 

[Tyler Allison]

I did not send it through SN even though I considered it as I didn't want to get penalized for sending a report that didn't meet severe criteria even though the local office wanted that. How would I best handle a case like that?

You did the right thing.

If your local NWS office is asking you to send in sub severe reports you should do so. But not via the Spotter Network. If I was so inclined to submit non-severe weather conditions I would utilize the SN to obtain the phone number for the office and call them. Or participate in the CoCoRaHs network which is designed for such observations.

It is unfortunate that NWS offices do not abide by the national standard and thus place the rest of us in a predicament of supporting 140+ various reporting criteria or the official one. We have decided to support the official one.

-Tyler

 

[Robert Dewey]

[...] Made one report about sub severe winds to let the NWS know the part of the storm I was on had not produced a severe wind gust in over an hour [...]

I agree with this. Maybe there should be an option that allows users to input a report as "sub-severe" criteria. A storm being warned for "destructive winds in excess of 80MPH," but is consistently producing only 50-57MPH winds would be rather notable (this is sometimes the case when a storm rooted in elevated instability). Same applies for hail, tornadoes, etc..

It would be nice to get near real-time ground truth in a storm's environment without going through the hassle listed above (calling, CoCoRaHs, etc.).

 

[Tim Stoecklein]

You did the right thing.

If your local NWS office is asking you to send in sub severe reports you should do so. But not via the Spotter Network. If I was so inclined to submit non-severe weather conditions I would utilize the SN to obtain the phone number for the office and call them.

I totally agree. Our NWS office occasionally asks for sub-severe hail reports so they can track strengthening, or to figure out the "VIL of the day" as they put it I don't disagree with their requests at all, but I always submit them via ham radio or phone.

As for the rankings...cool feature for a little bit of accountability, and does very little to harm the system if folks are reporting what they're supposed to be anyway.

 

[Todd Krause]

It is unfortunate that NWS offices do not abide by the national standard and thus place the rest of us in a predicament of supporting 140+ various reporting criteria or the official one. We have decided to support the official one.

Hi Tyler. I'm unaware of any national reporting standard. Do you have a reference?

Todd

 

[Jason Foster]

Hi Tyler. I'm unaware of any national reporting standard. Do you have a reference?

Todd

Todd, I have seen it in the printed materials usually handed out at the skywarn classes. If I still have mine, I'll scan and post it. Otherwise this is from the local NWS webpage:

Add: Here, I found a pdf copy online of the Skywarn Basic Guide....although a little old:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/brochures/basicspot.pdf

 

[JSmith]

IMO the entire attitude coming from the Spotter Network "Team" is somewhat smug in many regards. I've found several comments from your board members that tout SN as the greatest thing since radar for the NWS.

There are MANY times where the NWS doesnt adhere to your "standards of quality", and yet you wish to penalize people who do as the NWS asks.

If you cant be bothered to determine what is being asked of spotters, then what is the point of having this service? I understand this would be a logistical nightmare, but when your staff is touting this service as being superior to any other method of reporting, then I believe that you should strive to accomplish this before eliminating spotters who are simply complying with NWS requests by using your service.

To be honest, I've found instances where somebody will post a question in NWSChat regarding a SN Report and the comments from NWS in NWSChat basically say that they dont know who the person is and basically dont believe it until you see it.


Now, We're all in the same boat and working towards the same goal, why does there have to be such a competition and ranking system.


If you wish to have a ranking system to gauge the accuracy of past reports from a spotter, the ranking should NOT be public. It should be something that SN staff, the spotter himself, and the NWS can see ONLY. This would discourage the competition to be the best.

 

[Tyler Allison]

IMO the entire attitude coming from the Spotter Network "Team" is somewhat smug in many regards.

Then you don't know me very well, but to each his own.

I've found several comments from your board members that tout SN as the greatest thing since radar for the NWS.

They wouldn't be very good advisors if they didn't think it was the best thing since radar.

There are MANY times where the NWS doesnt adhere to your "standards of quality", and yet you wish to penalize people who do as the NWS asks.

Not sure how we would penalize someone for doing what their local NWS office tells them to do. Or did you mean we penalize people for using our system against our rules? The SN is only one method to get data to the NWS you should have many tools in your toolbox.

If you cant be bothered to determine what is being asked of spotters, then what is the point of having this service? I understand this would be a logistical nightmare, but when your staff is touting this service as being superior to any other method of reporting, then I believe that you should strive to accomplish this before eliminating spotters who are simply complying with NWS requests by using your service.

huh? You want me, an unpaid volunteer, to manage 140+ custom sets of reporting criteria that could change at anytime? A job the full NWS and the millions if dollars in grant money has failed to accomplish? I'm flattered with your assessment of my ability but it's not something I can take on as a 4 hours a week "hobby".

To be honest, I've found instances where somebody will post a question in NWSChat regarding a SN Report and the comments from NWS in NWSChat basically say that they dont know who the person is and basically dont believe it until you see it.

When dealing with hundreds of people all working from a different playbook this is to be expected. It's a hold over view from the days of inconsitant training and a need to "own" the resource (the spotter). Those days are changing...slowly.

Now, We're all in the same boat and working towards the same goal, why does there have to be such a competition and ranking system.

Where's the competition? Ranks do not automatically mean a competition is involved. Life is full of ranks. How else do you propose a differentiation be created between someone who just finished training for the first time and someone who has been spotting/chasing for 30 years? As much as we want to believe they should be treated the same, that's not how the world/society works. I was dead set against such a system and faught it since the beginning. But rank/trust/etc factors into the warning system every day, even if people dont want to believe it. It sucks, but it's life.

The method we developed places no bias on reputation, age, ego or money. Only your ability and track record mater. Anyone who can prove they know what they are doing moves up in "rank".

If you wish to have a ranking system to gauge the accuracy of past reports from a spotter, the ranking should NOT be public. It should be something that SN staff, the spotter himself, and the NWS can see ONLY.

I will never allow the SN to do something "sneaky" or hidden. If we are going to do it, then do it in public view and take the tounge lashing. If a better idea comes around, embrace it.

This would discourage the competition to be the best.

What?!? No!!! We want to encourage the best performers! I can't believe you just suggested we should not be encouaging folks to do better. That literally makes me sad.