<HTML><HEAD></HEAD> <BODY dir=ltr> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Mr. Bryan,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Currently the reasoning behind putting a time on these overnight eruptions is that the Geysertimes system can then calculate the approximate interval because it will not compute an interval off of a note which is only</DIV> <DIV>visible by searching each individual day manually in database currently as this is the only way to put in a non-exact time eruption in your method of not adding timestamps. So as a result notes currently get lost to history in</DIV> <DIV>a way also because of the way the system currently works.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also to be honest with the current system setup, your post makes me a bit scared to enter data for some events. For example, I have never observed what Fan and Mortar looks like the morning after an overnight eruption</DIV> <DIV>and there was no bird droppings since the last eruption and lets make it early or late season so there are very few gazers around. So now lets say Fan and Mortar were showing signs that it erupted overnight but since I have</DIV> <DIV>never observed this with an experienced person. I’m not exactly sure if what I am observing matches what I have read in books. What should I do? There are only a few gazers in the park and they may be somewhere else in</DIV> <DIV>another basin. So should I post my info to Geysertimes by using a standard notation and list it as 0000A? or 0000? as we currently do it, and then take the question mark off later on the A time if I get conformation about my</DIV> <DIV>observations, or should I post it as a note or not at all and let the data get lost to history because I was only 95% sure and we can’t put timestamps on overnight eruptions. But no matter what, I would still be assuming that</DIV> <DIV>Fan and Mortar erupted the previous night since I did not witness the actual eruption. Also by not listing it as 0000ie? it makes it clear that it was not the exact time of a questionable steam cloud that I maybe observed over</DIV> <DIV>the trees from the cabins on a moonlit night for example. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So I think the key point of the “A” would be that you did not witness an actual eruption but you know it happened from observations after the eruption, where as the current practice would lead new people (maybe years</DIV> <DIV>from now) to believe that that was an actual observation of a steam cloud or something at that point in time if they pulled just the times but not the comments because they didn’t have the time to read all the comments</DIV> <DIV>for a data analysis down the road.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Will Boekel</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>