<HTML><HEAD></HEAD> <BODY dir=ltr> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Gazers,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I just had a meeting with Jake Young about the data uploads and about the general features to add to the geysertimes system.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>A few things came up while we were talking. First the question of what the standard practice for adding an overnight or within a given timeframe eruption to geysertimes should be.</DIV> <DIV>Currently they have been entered as 0000ie? or in the middle of the time range with a ? and ie. My thought is to add a new code, possibly “AE” or “A” for Assumed Eruption. In my head at least</DIV> <DIV>the ? means that it may have erupted or it may have been something else. Also that as we go along with the old data being put in and with all the data in the future that this could get messy and confuse</DIV> <DIV>people. By adding “AE” or “A” to a time this would make it clear that the entry means that you know it erupted but you don’t have the exact time instead of that it may have been in eruption at 0000 from an actual</DIV> <DIV>observation at that exact time. Also a time of 0000A? would resemble that you weren’t 100% sure that your assumed eruption happened.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Another thing that I would like seeing is the addition of the VR code in geysertimes as another way to make the data a bit clearer without reading all the comments.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thoughts???????</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Will Boekel</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>