No subject
Fri Jan 11 17:00:42 PST 2013
with the "A" code are 1) looking at data from the past and misinterpreting
it, 2) the inability to easily search geyser comments which are without an
explicit time in geysertimes.org, and 3) how to deal with/interpret/import
the OFVC logs.
To address the first, not only do we need to have caution when interpreting
old data so that we don't skew it, but we also need to make sure the data
being written now is as easy to interpret correctly as possible in the
future. The current format of 0000? can be interpreted different ways down
the road as either "time?" or "eruption?". The viewer of data won't know
whether the entrant didn't know the time or whether the eruption actually
occurred (a huge difference!). Maybe there is a protocol to entering the ?
code which I don't know, but things get lost with time, and future gazers
would know as much about "?" as I do now. With the A code, any future
viewer knows the eruption DID occur with maximum certainty, just that the
time is "A"pproximate within a reasonable time range.
As for the geyser comments, I have an example. I am cleaning out the 1993
log for import. There is ONE note for Oblong in the first half of the year
explaining how it was dormant, and the evidence of its dormancy. Someone
looking through GT.org would not see that in a list of Oblong eruptions
unless they happened to open the daily record for 2/14/1993 and saw that
there was a note for it. Now why would someone be searching on GT.org
instead of anywhere else, namely the OFVC logs? Both databases as of now
include points that the other does not, they are both "incomplete". In
addition, the OFVC logs are set in stone, it's certainly taboo to go back
and edit them; the same goes for other databases such as the Transactions.
GT.org is another story though, where data from past decades can be added
(see my third point if this statement disagrees with you). We have the
ability to make GT.org one of the most comprehensive databases of geyser
history available along with Scott's and Whittlesey's works and the
Transactions, granted the OFVEC doesn't start writing down everything
submitted to GT.org into the log of that day (don't think that's gonna
happen). One of the major things holding the site back from being all that
it can be is the inability to easily browse notes, which I implore Jake to
consider adding as a function (I also want to thank Jake and Alan a million
times over for their work!).
Now for the issue of expanding the GT.org database to include the historic
OVFC logs. I agree with Lynn in that the data should be preserved as
closely as possible, so *everyone cleaning out the logs for import** needs
to take every entry with a grain of salt* (myself included). The data we
put into GT.org will be read by future gazers as absolute data; a number
means an eruption unless accompanied by a ? or vr. Note that I didn't add
"A" to that list of codes because A should not mean that, but explicitly
that the eruption occurred. Looking back at the data in the OFVC logs, we
may not know whether an "overnight" or "marker replaced" or "washed runoff"
etc. is 100% for sure an eruption. So while I do support the idea of
creating an "A" code and using it for future eruptions of geysers where the
aftermath makes it obvious it erupted, I do not think that it should be
added to all times from the OFVC logs where an time interval for an
eruption is given.
My third point begs a side note I want to bring up about vr entries in the
OFVC logs and adding them to GT.org. The vr code is possibly the reddest
flag to come up when sifting data for "bad" times, and yet that issue has
no been brought up very much and all those times have been going into
GT.org with little discrepancy. If we are to continue this, then I have
another request of Jake to implement the ability to filter eruptions by
codes such as vr or ? (or A) when retrieving data, as I'm sure people who
want a minimum of "bad" data would do.
I say these things both looking back in time to historical databases and
forwards in time to future gazers and how what we enter into the records
now can be interpreted later. I hope I've shed a new angle of light on the
subject.
Your friendly neighborhood Aurum addict,
Demetri Stoumbos
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Will Boekel <wolveslax65 at comcast.net>wrote=
:
> Gazers,
>
> I am going to be up front, this may classify as a rant post but I feel
> that it needs to be made.
>
> I have been contacted by some people that think I am moving too fast abou=
t
> this whole code issue. I feel this is not the case. When I made the secon=
d
> survey I had not seen any listserve posts about this issue or any new
> survey submissions for just about two-three days. This led me to believe
> that everyone that wanted a say had voiced their opinions and that it was
> time to make the first fine tuning to the proposal. If there had been mor=
e
> discussion that was happening I probably would have waited. I am starting
> to hit the same point on the current survey but the number of responses o=
n
> the survey have declined and I will be waiting for more people to respond=
,
> hopefully ASAP.
>
> Now I have heard that some people are having some personal discussion
> between gazers. This is fine but in the long run how is that conversation
> going to help the group as a whole move forward on this decision because =
I
> am not prepared to play telephone with everyone because that just puts us
> all on separate pages. So gazers, I think it is time to step up and have =
a
> real open discussion about this. Quit being afraid about causing a
> firestorm on the listserve just because you think your idea may be slight=
ly
> outside the box. If people can=92t see past your ideas (good or bad) and =
hate
> you for presenting them, then you probably shouldn=92t be friends anyway.
> Also if we want to progress and become better gazers in the future then w=
e
> must think outside the box and test these new ideas and theories as thing=
s
> are always changing and there will always be puzzles to solve.
>
> To my knowledge for this second survey I have included all the ideas for
> possible solutions to the issue. If I haven=92t ether you didn=92t post t=
he
> idea somewhere I could see it or it slipped by me.
>
> SO PLEASE START DISCUSSING!!!
>
> Will Boekel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geysers mailing list
> Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
>
>
--20cf3071cecedb652704d38197c4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>To anyone willing to endure this teal deer,</div><div><br></div>From w=
hat I've read, three of the major issues that have been brought up with=
the "A" code are 1) looking at data from the past and misinterpr=
eting it, 2) the inability to easily search geyser comments which are witho=
ut an explicit time in <a href=3D"http://geysertimes.org">geysertimes.org</=
a>, and 3) how to deal with/interpret/import the OFVC logs.<div>
<br></div><div>To address the first, not only do we need to have caution wh=
en interpreting old data so that we don't skew it, but we also need to =
make sure the data being written now is as easy to interpret correctly as p=
ossible in the future. =A0The current format of 0000? can be interpreted di=
fferent ways down the road as either "time?" or "eruption?&q=
uot;. =A0The viewer of data won't know whether the entrant didn't k=
now the time or whether the eruption actually occurred (a huge difference!)=
. =A0Maybe there is a protocol to entering the ? code which I don't kno=
w, but things get lost with time, and future gazers would know as much abou=
t "?" as I do now. =A0With the A code, any future viewer knows th=
e eruption DID occur with maximum certainty, just that the time is "A&=
quot;pproximate within a reasonable time range.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As for the geyser comments, I have an example. =A0I am =
cleaning out the 1993 log for import. =A0There is ONE note for Oblong in th=
e first half of the year explaining how it was dormant, and the evidence of=
its dormancy. =A0Someone looking through GT.org would not see that in a li=
st of Oblong eruptions unless they happened to open the daily record for 2/=
14/1993 and saw that there was a note for it. =A0Now why would someone be s=
earching on GT.org instead of anywhere else, namely the OFVC logs? =A0Both =
databases as of now include points that the other does not, they are both &=
quot;incomplete". =A0In addition, the OFVC logs are set in stone, it&#=
39;s certainly taboo to go back and edit them; the same goes for other data=
bases such as the Transactions. =A0GT.org is another story though, where da=
ta from past decades can be added (see my third point if this statement dis=
agrees with you). =A0We have the ability to make GT.org one of the most com=
prehensive databases of geyser history available along with Scott's and=
Whittlesey's works and the Transactions, granted the OFVEC doesn't=
start writing down everything submitted to GT.org into the log of that day=
(don't think that's gonna happen). =A0One of the major things hold=
ing the site back from being all that it can be is the inability to easily =
browse notes, which I implore Jake to consider adding as a function (I also=
want to thank Jake and Alan a million times over for their work!).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Now for the issue of expanding the GT.org database to i=
nclude the historic OVFC logs. =A0I agree with Lynn in that the data should=
be preserved as closely as possible, so <u>everyone cleaning out the logs =
for import</u><u>=A0needs to take every entry with a grain of salt</u>=A0(m=
yself included). =A0The data we put into GT.org will be read by future gaze=
rs as absolute data; a number means an eruption unless accompanied by a ? o=
r vr. =A0Note that I didn't add "A" to that list of codes bec=
ause A should not mean that, but explicitly that the eruption occurred. =A0=
Looking back at the data in the OFVC logs, we may not know whether an "=
;overnight" or "marker replaced" or "washed runoff"=
; etc. is 100% for sure an eruption. =A0So while I do support the idea of c=
reating an "A" code and using it for future eruptions of geysers =
where the aftermath makes it obvious it erupted, I do not think that it sho=
uld be added to all times from the OFVC logs where an time interval for an =
eruption is given.</div>
<div><br></div><div>My third point begs a side note I want to bring up abou=
t vr entries in the OFVC logs and adding them to GT.org. The vr code is pos=
sibly the reddest flag to come up when sifting data for "bad" tim=
es, and yet that issue has no been brought up very much and all those times=
have been going into GT.org with little discrepancy. =A0If we are to conti=
nue this, then I have another request of Jake to implement the ability to f=
ilter eruptions by codes such as vr or ? (or A) when retrieving data, as I&=
#39;m sure people who want a minimum of "bad" data would do.</div=
>
<div><br></div><div>I say these things both looking back in time to histori=
cal databases and forwards in time to future gazers and how what we enter i=
nto the records now can be interpreted later. =A0I hope I've shed a new=
angle of light on the subject.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Your friendly neighborhood Aurum addict,</div><div>Deme=
tri Stoumbos</div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 =
at 8:20 PM, Will Boekel <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:wolveslax65=
@comcast.net" target=3D"_blank">wolveslax65 at comcast.net</a>></span> wrot=
e:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div style=3D"font-size:12pt;font-family:'Calibri'">
<div>Gazers,</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>I am going to be up front, this may classify as a rant post but I feel=
that=20
it needs to be made.</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>I have been contacted by some people that think I am moving too fast a=
bout=20
this whole code issue. I feel this is not the case. When I made the second=
=20
survey I had not seen any listserve posts about this issue or any new surve=
y=20
submissions for just about two-three days. This led me to believe that ever=
yone=20
that wanted a say had voiced their opinions and that it was time to make th=
e=20
first fine tuning to the proposal. If there had been more discussion that w=
as=20
happening I probably would have waited. I am starting to hit the same point=
on=20
the current survey but the number of responses on the survey have declined =
and I=20
will be waiting for more people to respond, hopefully ASAP.</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>Now I have heard that some people are having some personal discussion=
=20
between gazers. This is fine but in the long run how is that conversation g=
oing=20
to help the group as a whole move forward on this decision because I am not=
=20
prepared to play telephone with everyone because that just puts us all on=
=20
separate pages. So gazers, I think it is time to step up and have a real op=
en=20
discussion about this. Quit being afraid about causing a firestorm on the=
=20
listserve just because you think your idea may be slightly outside the box.=
If=20
people can=92t see past your ideas (good or bad) and hate you for presentin=
g them,=20
then you probably shouldn=92t be friends anyway. Also if we want to progres=
s and=20
become better gazers in the future then we must think outside the box and t=
est=20
these new ideas and theories as things are always changing and there will a=
lways=20
be puzzles to solve.</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>To my knowledge for this second survey I have included all the ideas f=
or=20
possible solutions to the issue. If I haven=92t ether you didn=92t post the=
idea=20
somewhere I could see it or it slipped by me.</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>SO PLEASE START DISCUSSING!!!</div><span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=
=3D"#888888">
<div>=A0</div>
<div>Will Boekel</div></font></span></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Geysers mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu">Geysers at lists.wallawalla.ed=
u</a><br>
<a href=3D"" target=3D=
"_blank"></a><br></blo=
ckquote></div><br></div>
--20cf3071cecedb652704d38197c4--
More information about the Geysers
mailing list