<html> <head> <style></style></head> <body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'> I’d like to ask a few questions to Will or Jake to see if I have this straight.  Some of my opinions snuck in, and I hope it helps generate discussion.   Using F&M as the example, I understand that the current convention for noting unseen/overnight times online has been to enter “0000?”, or if it was observed until 0200 and found post-eruptive in the morning, an entry might say “0300?”    Comments like "wet asphalt at 0500" are usually entered to help with that time frame.  That is entering the best possible known time which is then used by the system to calculate elapsed time or a ballpark interval.  That seems to have worked fine and in my opinion can continue for future eruptions.  Can you re-state your explanation of why a new “code” is necessary?  Many of us don’t seem to be following that.   Will wrote: "For this new code I intend to only use it in Geysertimes, I do not intend to change how the log in the visitor center is written. Also these kind of entries go all the way back in the OFVCL-EV logs so I wanted to try and clear this issue up before I transfer the rest of the logs so I don’t have to go through them all again."   Does this mean that you would apply a code, or other proposed time conventions to the decades of “overnight” notations in the OFVEC Log files?   My question is… why?    Sometimes the log will say "overnight", "early morning", or "replaced pebbles" and those are useful comments, but give no hint of whether it was just after dark or before dawn.  In winter it may be a few days before signs of an eruption are noted.   I don’t feel it is up to us (or a computer) to decide when we “think” an eruption occurred in years or decades past.  As Udo stated we will always have gaps in the data, and often times plan our days (and look at intervals and crunch numbers in retrospect and research) based on double and triple intervals.  We can and do rely on the comments in these cases.  A side note: If you were indeed planning on adding the “code” or “?” notation to the OFVEC logs,  my opinion is another new notation  MUST be implemented as any change in the OFVEC LOG files then makes it NOT the OFVEC LOG files which have been painstakingly transcribed for our use, and for the historic record.   A future researcher needs to know that the information is now another step removed from the original.   Next:   Will wrote: "Also in my data calculations in Excel, I still need to put some sort of time in for the calculation and if the system does that for me so I don’t need to read all the comments to get those times, that equals time saved." Are you saying that the comments from the OFVEC logs would not be transferred into GeyserTimes? I see no way around not having COMMENTS, not only for getting a grip on overnight times, as described above, but for understanding current geyser behavior, and understanding past geyser behavior for the historic record.   I can give examples of nearly every geyser where comments are crucial to our understanding of current (and past) trends.  If you pull up one geyser in GeyserTimes, (“Retrieve Data”), comments are easily viewed.   Perhaps the issue here is ease of input, specifically for the bulk uploads of OFVEC Logbook files??   On behalf of many, I heartily thank both Jake for the wonderful website and tools, and Will for the efforts, but I am still a little lost why we are having this discussion and hope you can clear it up for me, and for others.  Thank you.   MA M.A. Bellinghammabdepot@msn.com  </div></body> </html>