SN rolls out a Ranking system

[Robert Dewey]

[...] You want me, an unpaid volunteer, to manage 140+ custom sets of reporting criteria that could change at anytime? [...]

...or just have an option for sub-severe criteria reports. If NWS mets don't want to bother looking at those, then they don't have to.

 

[Tim Shriver]

Severe Criteria:

1. Tornado
2. Funnel
3. Rotating Wall Cloud
4 T-Storm winds at or over 58 mph (Measured or Estimated)
5. Hail at or larger then 1 inch. (Measured or Estimated)
6. Flooding. Damage/evacuations occurring. Dam breaks/topping etc

The above items, I would think, are severe weather events that any
WFO would want to know ASAP.

We don't need to see a flood of non-severe reports in the NWSChat.
Lets not take something and pump a ton of static into it from SN.


If sub-severe then eSpotter is the way to go.

Just a thought....

As far as the ranking system I can see one good thing for every bad thing.
To think it not will lead to compitition, to some degree, would not be facing facts
on human nature and chasers..with that said, I do think it would settle down some
after it becomes less noticed and new.


Tim

 

[Robert Dewey]

Lets not take something and pump a ton of static into it from SN.

I'm sure there are other ways to do it. Ground-truth is just about the best data you can get, and shouldn't be limited IMO. Perhaps it would be better suited as a different product altogether, sort of like a mesoscale observation system. The point is, if there are people in the field in the vicinity of a SVR storm, all reports (+SVR/-SVR) would be useful in determining whether the storm is strengthening, weakening, or which portion(s) of the storm aren't producing SVR criteria.

 

[Tim Shriver]

I'm sure there are other ways to do it. Ground-truth is just about the best data you can get, and shouldn't be limited IMO. Perhaps it would be better suited as a different product altogether, sort of like a mesoscale observation system.

I agree. Observations of some non-severe items, such as cell development, cloud motion etc. is very important. But not, "gee its raining" sort of crap.

This is the function that a spotter group can provide on the air
and prior to submitting any reports and ingest for their own use.

Helps place spotters in the right spot
and gives you lead time before the radar sweeps it.

SN may not be able to provide this function due to the nature
of SN and its integration into NWSChat. During an outbreak
this additional traffic would cause more problems then needed.

SN is a severe storm report submission system. Not a spotter group
or net.

Tim

 

[Daniel Shaw]

Helps place spotters in the right spot
and gives you lead time before the radar sweeps it.

SN is a severe storm report submission system. Not a spotter group
or net.

Tim

Thank you for your comments Tim.

This is my first message in ST. I have been holding off for some time.

I agree the SN system is purely for reporting severe weather, but I have come to use it for safety whilst chasing.

For example, a cell has radar indicated hail of 0.75", but a spotter puts a report of 2.5", I know to get out of the way and re-position myself.

I thought carefully about submitting a report yesterday for a good 5 mins. I was very concerned about the safety of chasers using a major southern road yesterday in Nebraska. Initial forecasts put the storm in that area and as all of us do regularly, we leave at the last safe moment.

I submitted a detailed report on road work delays affecting "An escape route", and there was no warning of upcoming construction and no other way out.

When I chase, I always switch my radio to the local spotter net, and sometimes hear warnings like "John... don't use that road, the bridge is under construction and there is no way out".

My point being, should a storm become tornadic and you are relying on this road to re-position to safety it may end up costing you your life, simply because you don't know about the local back road conditions.

Many of us rely on GRL3 or an equivilent.

Not wishing to add more workload to Tyler's life.... However, I strongly feel there should be a reporting system of some kind that can allow us to report such conditions and have it available as a separate placefile which we could choose to have on or off.

These reports would not be seen by the NWS or local offices and would not hinder or cloud the reporting system.

I don't feel good that I was penalised with negative results for making the report, but do agree and respect their decision. They are right, It was not severe weather related.

I strongly feel with the amount of chasers on the increase every year, it's only a matter of time until 100 chasers take the wrong turn and pay for it with their lives.

Daniel Shaw.

 

[Robert Dewey]

I agree. Observations of some non-severe items, such as cell development, cloud motion etc. is very important. But not, "gee its raining" sort of crap.

Exactly. It's very important for quality -SVR reports. TOR warnings are pretty straightforward (is there enough low-level rotation, or isn't there?). SVR warnings aren't so much: is that 60DBz core over a VIL of 50 really producing 2 inch hail? Is that apparent bow echo really producing >60MPH winds?

I get the fact that there's a paradox here; If the storm isn't producing SVR, then there won't be any reports. However, that's not always the case... and I don't think it's safe to assume that 0 reports = no severe weather. Instead, if spotters are in place, it would be much more beneficial to know that the reason they aren't reporting is because conditions aren't meeting SVR criteria... and if those conditions aren't reaching SVR criteria, what's going on?

I suppose SN isn't built for that, or they don't see the value in such reporting... but adding an entirely different software package to the mix seems backwards to me, especially if the goal is simplicity. SN is already adopted by many users, and trying to rebuild a user base - and having them manage various softwares for reporting - isn't productive.

 

[James.Skivers]

The Answer: Trapster?

http://trapster.com ...FREE app that is supported via the web and over smart phones such as BlackBerry, iPhone, Windows Mobile, Andriod, as well as other phones that support a Java platform.

Asides from speed traps, you're able to report; Dangerous Intersections, Flooded Roads, Ice On Roads, Narrow Bridges, Roads Closed, Road Kill, Construction Zones, Accidents, Brush Fires, etc, etc....

I use it all the time while chasing and know a few other chasers that do as well. Tho it does not currently have GR or StormLab placefile integration... I'm sure we could campaign in the Trapster forums for such feature. But for today, it's what we've got to work with and it works quite well.

~J.

 

[Todd Krause]

I found a pdf copy online of the Skywarn Basic Guide....although a little old:

Thanks, Jason. The disclaimer on page 6 mentions to "contact your local NWS office for specific adjustments to the criteria suggested above."

As has been mentioned elsewhere, there are some very valid sub-severe reports that help us to decide whether or not a warning should be issued, reissued, canceled, or to decide what info to provide in a follow-up Severe Weather Statement or Local Storm Report. And so our office continues to request sub-severe reports, and I know some other offices that feel the same way. My question to Tyler was really about his comment that "it is unfortunate that NWS offices do not abide by the national standard," when the basic guide says the criteria are suggested, and the advanced guide says use the following "guidelines."

However, SN has to decide what is best on a whole variety of fronts and I would imagine it can't be too easy to strike the right balance. I know that's a politically safe non-statement, but it's probably like the old cliche about herding cats. Trying to get people on a committee to agree is not easy, let alone 100+ offices. We receive reports from multiple sources, not just SN.

Todd

 

[JSmith]

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

No, I dont know you... You're not specifically the problem I was referring to.

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

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.

There is somebody in this very thread who had his reporting privs revoked for simply reporting what the NWS was asking for. Is that not what SN is for? FWIW, I've never reported anything through SN, because I'm relatively new to SN and havent had much for spotting opportunities. So as a tool in my toolbox, its like that broken socket that lays in the bottom taking up space, but you keep it anyway because you may take it back to get it replaced someday even though you already have 4 replacements.

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".

When the service is being sold as the greatest way to report to the NWS, then yea.... I expect the service to work like the greatest way to report to the NWS.

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.

I believe that your new ranking system will inspire a competition to be at the top of the list, no matter what. False reports, parroting other things heard on the radio, etc. etc. will all be more likely now.

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".

Understood.

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.

I'm not saying that SN should be doing anything sneaky or hidden. Making the rankings private would not be nefarious if the people who are interpreting the reports, and the spotter himself are able to see the ranking and what is required to move up or down.

This is the internet, and there are plenty of weirdo's out there who think that by obtaining 10,000 posts in a certain forum, their social status will somehow be elevated. I KNOW this happens. I'm an administrator at a web based forum with over 310,000 members. The same thing applies here... If somebody can get their name on your leaderboard, their social status will increase, and the NWS will call them specifically for advice...


We all know that isnt the case if you can get onto the leaderboard, but I KNOW some people will be thinking that way.

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.

Please dont misunderstand what I was trying to say. Getting better is a VERY good thing, however, I dont believe that the ranking system will inspire people to get better, only to try to compete for that top spot.

We don't need to see a flood of non-severe reports in the NWSChat.
Lets not take something and pump a ton of static into it from SN.


If sub-severe then eSpotter is the way to go.

Many Times eSpotter reports show up in NWSChat moments after you hit submit.

I have also found that during severe weather outbreaks, storm reports are suspended in NWSChat, and compiled in one place, then a link to the one large report is placed in NWSChat.

 

[rdale]

Many Times eSpotter reports show up in NWSChat moments after you hit submit.

I have NEVER seen an eSpotter report in NWSChat. Are you sure?

I have also found that during severe weather outbreaks, storm reports are suspended in NWSChat

Absolutely wrong. At no time does NWSChat suspend anything. It's all live.

I think you are confusing offices that don't issue LSR's. NWS Cleveland had nothing about the fatal Toledo tornado until several hours after the fact.

Per the directives: "LSRs should be issued as close to real time as possible. WFOs should issue LSRs to “summarizeâ€￾ a list of reports during and/or at the end of an event (e.g. severe weather outbreak, winter storm)."

It's possible that office had no idea a monster tornado in the CWA occurred, but otherwise I'm not sure. In any case, most offices are very good at popping the LSR shortly after getting the report.

 

[JSmith]

I have NEVER seen an eSpotter report in NWSChat. Are you sure?

I'm POSITIVE

Absolutely wrong. At no time does NWSChat suspend anything. It's all live.

I think you are confusing offices that don't issue LSR's. NWS Cleveland had nothing about the fatal Toledo tornado until several hours after the fact.

I have no proof except for what i thought I had found in the past.... I'll have to give up on that argument as i'm not entirely sure you're wrong.



BUT I have found espotter reports show up in NWSChat. Most likely after NWS approval, however, they are there.

 

[rdale]

BUT I have found espotter reports show up in NWSChat. Most likely after NWS approval, however, they are there.

Ahh - the NWS met copied and pasted it in. I thought you meant to say that they were automatically put into the room like SN reports are.

 

[Jason Foster]

In part, off-topic:

The sad thing is...many offices still use neither (SN, espotter, etc.). Other than just putting the reports on SN for others...it is pointless here in DC region. I just wonder if the ranking system would be affected by that. I hope that it actually increased the quality and reliability of the reports such that approaching non-participating WFOs will jump on board quickly.

 

[Tyler Allison]

No, I dont know you... You're not specifically the problem I was referring to.

There is somebody in this very thread who had his reporting privs revoked for simply reporting what the NWS was asking for.

No. He had his SN reporting privileges revoked for not following the SN rules. He is free to report to the NWS all he wants through any means he wishes, except not the SN. He can even call their 800 number and tell them his lawn chair just blew away. But if you violate the rules of our system your ability to report through us will be taken away.

Is that not what SN is for?

So anyone can report anything to the NWS? No. Our system specifically says it is for severe weather only and provides a very detailed list of what is and is not permitted on our network.

When the service is being sold as the greatest way to report to the NWS, then yea.... I expect the service to work like the greatest way to report to the NWS.

It's not being sold. It's being provided as a free service maintained by volunteers.

I believe that your new ranking system will inspire a competition to be at the top of the list, no matter what. False reports, parroting other things heard on the radio, etc. etc. will all be more likely now.

Then you don't understand the system. If you "submit a false report, parrot other things, etc..etc.." your rank goes down. The only way to move up in rank is to submit accurate quality reports.

Please dont misunderstand what I was trying to say. Getting better is a VERY good thing, however, I dont believe that the ranking system will inspire people to get better, only to try to compete for that top spot.

The only way to get to the top spot is to be better.

-Tyler

 

[Dean Baron]

If you want to take away my reporting privileges fine, but you are taking away the easiest way of reporting severe weather, reports that I submit in order to help the NWS and the communities being affected, not some stupid ranking or to impress people; and keep in mind that one of my earlier reports thru SN is what put a warning on that storm in the first place. If the info about sub-severe winds isn't what SN is for, I won't report it. BTW, where does it say what is and is not acceptable to report? I'm looking for it right now on the site, and maybe I'm just missing it, but right now I don't see the list.