• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

Spotter Network Report Today

Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
390
Location
Mason City IA
Anyone seeing the report in IL that says:

"possible hook echo on grlevel3 as well on lowering on GR2 AE"


First off, I wouldnt think this is something that should be reported on the system like that. 2nd, I dont even really see what you would call a hook echo anywhere in that time frame.
 
This is the only thing I see that he could be referring to, I am missing a couple frames but I cant imagine this ever turned into anything let alone was even warned.

ILRadarImage.png
 
not meaning to jack this thread but how about this one from a few weeks ago

Spotternetreport.jpg
 
One would think that if they put the money forward for GR Level 3 they would know and understand how to use it. Thats why we have humans to interpret the reports and disseminate the good from the bad and the idiocy from the intelligent.

Gusts to 26.7mph! Almost hurricane force!

Chip
 
He was emailed by a fellow Illinois chaser earlier and he apologized for using the system incorrectly and said that he had learned a valuable lesson today. Probably just a "n00b" who didn't know what was going on.
 
The problem is, as more "n00b's" come along, this will continue to happen. Some time ago, I remember talk of implementing some sort of training requirement for SN users that would address this issue. In my opinion, the sooner the better. I certainly would hate to see NWS offices begin to ignore the "SpotterNetwork" reports that come through NWSChat because of quality concerns. Or worse, a discontinuation of these reports being fed into chat.
 
Yep, thanks to these few idiots that can't give quality reports, we will all have to pay for it. It really amazes me what people do sometimes.
 
I wonder if there is a way to create some kind of "quality assurance script" that checks the parameters someone enters against a database of minimums and then either accept or reject the report. Probably wouldn't be a "catch-all" but in some cases if the minimum required wind speed for "high wind" was 40 mph (in the script) and the report was less than or equal to 39 mph then it would just kick out the report and not put it into the report script.
 
If it becomes too much of a problem, then either SN privileges will have to be restricted to those who are qualified, or the reports will have to be moderated by someone, much like the way this forum is run.
 
I contacted the person shortly after the report. It was a well meaning individual who didn't understand reporting criteria. They wanted to help.

This is exactly why we have been working on a training program that is 90% complete and the SN committie is actively reviewing. It's the best online training Ive seen to date. I'm hopeful it will be openned up in March and required shortly there after.

-Tyler
 
The problem is we've got so much damn technology, people are using it "just because". Another great example is 5 solid hours of live streaming of someone driving down the road.
 
My all time favorite noob report was "really dark clouds"

Those SLCs can be pretty intense!

Theres a difference between those who mean well and those who are abusing a system. The offender should be warned and monitored, perhaps using the 3 strikes your out system. Maybe SN could add a confirmation window that pops up before the report goes through...something that has a check box that says "The report meets criteria" with a link to read them for those who don't understand....just a thought
 
I contacted the person shortly after the report. It was a well meaning individual who didn't understand reporting criteria. They wanted to help.

This is exactly why we have been working on a training program that is 90% complete and the SN committie is actively reviewing. It's the best online training Ive seen to date. I'm hopeful it will be openned up in March and required shortly there after.

-Tyler


Required for all new members to the network, or for all members?

I was chasing the day the "really dark clouds" report came out... my wife/nowcaster called me to warn me...we both had a good chuckle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top