Showing logs for date: 2024-02-15
06:52:09 <Kat> Good morning!
07:11:45 <linda> Kat, good morning
07:17:21 <Kat> :)
07:20:35 <linda> well it warmed up out thereo
07:21:01 <Kat> It did- good to see the snow!
07:21:20 <linda> yeah always nice
07:22:13 <Kat> People out early!
07:22:29 <linda> hardy souls
07:22:35 <Kat> LOL
07:44:17 <CD> Morning all!
07:44:38 <linda> CD, hi
07:44:45 <Kat> Morning
07:45:08 <Kat> Slow snowy morning
07:48:11 <CD> But pretty
07:49:18 <Kat> :thumbsup:
07:50:26 <Kat> Castle
07:50:59 <Kat> Let's get this party started!
07:51:42 <CD> :thumbsup:
07:52:07 <linda> i think you have to invite each geyser individually
07:52:40 <Kat> linda, hahaha OK! Let's go Grand
07:52:56 <linda> :)
08:02:00 <Kat> Castle looking like major
08:05:51 <Kat> OF
08:13:52 <Katie ⛄> Good morning
08:14:19 <Kat> Katie ⛄, morning!
08:14:32 <Kat> It's been a slow one!
08:32:48 <Katie ⛄> Plate
08:33:35 <Kat> Have a good drive Katie!
08:33:47 <Katie ⛄> Thanks!
09:05:53 <88> nmmm, NPS has a 1430 prediction for Grand
09:07:56 <Katie ⛄> Yeah, and they do have the etimes
09:19:42 <88> I'm surprised that someone was in basin for the 0156 Grand, tough person
09:44:42 <Pholli> The grand on GT is incorrect I think.
09:46:22 <Pholli> Oh nevermind.. I'll take another look at the logger after this OF
09:46:44 <Katie ⛄> :thumbsup:
10:02:40 <Pholli> 3 more minutes before a 2hr interval :0
10:05:43 <Pholli> 2hrsss
10:20:56 <Pholli> Interesting OF interval
10:21:28 <Pholli> And 3:15 duration
10:23:33 <Pholli> The grand eruption is interesting too. The logger didn't catch the 1:56am eruption, but it did catch an eruption at 7:08am making the interval at 5hr 12mins
10:26:02 <Dave from B> It will be interesting to see the next interval
10:27:20 <Dave from B> lots of GT flags and deletions from the 156 Grand poster
10:28:50 <88> Pholli, thanks, thought it was incorrect as it is not on the overnight capture either,but i have been 'cautioned' about mentioning a certain persons 'fantasy' posts
10:30:29 <Pholli> Haha, yeah the logger can sometimes miss things and I suppose a 5hr interval is possible but if it caught the 7:08 eruption then i doubt the logger missed the 1:56am one
10:31:06 <88> agree:thumbsup:
10:31:10 <Pholli> I can go out and check the runoff logger as well in the afternoon for confirmation, sometimes the telemeter one misses things the runoff logger catches
10:32:42 <Pholli> After the 18:20 eruption yesterday the prediction would've been 1:30am so it's not unrealistic
10:35:06 <88> true but the 0708 makes the 0156 unrealistic
10:39:43 <3> Hey all, the latest notes from Riverside are off too...the Castle one being very strange
10:41:25 <3> The Grand post is also an in basin time, maybe just forgot wc? Did anyone look at overnight capture to see if Grand was seen?
10:42:31 <88> yes, and there was no Grand at 0156 on the cvernight
10:43:01 <3> thanks 88, so why is the post still there on GT?
10:43:34 <3> just curious. The Grand A time Joe posted is gone, yet the 0156 remains?
10:43:39 <Katie ⛄> No one has flagged it
10:45:21 <Katie ⛄> the 1:56 looks like an in-basin unquestionable entry because it hasn't been flagged. It takes priority in the weighting over an approximate web entry.
10:45:54 <3> but Riverside, we know, is not in the park...all their entries have been wc before that
10:46:15 <Katie ⛄> 3, agreed. so we need to flag
10:46:27 <88> I deleted my A time as i saw the 5 h +xmin interval and did not want to mess up the database
10:46:57 <3> thanks Joe, I was wondering...I think if the 0156 is gone, the A time would be fine
10:47:15 <88> agree
10:48:24 <Pholli> AJ just flagged it
10:48:44 <3> why would they enter the OF note? Not the prediction time...I am starting to think they are just messing with GT
10:49:04 <3> at least it is a note though, harmless in the bigger picture, yet inaccurate.
10:49:09 <3> Thanks Pholli
10:49:19 <3> I hope you are enjoying winter finally being in the basin
10:50:00 <Pholli> The note makes no sense
10:50:25 <3> I agree, either note
10:50:29 <Pholli> It was a slog of a walk to work today in the new powder, (it's like walking through sand) but gosh is the snow gorgeous
10:50:39 <88> plate
10:51:54 <3> you are not used to having snow!!
10:52:13 <Pholli> Certainly not this much!
10:52:18 <Katie ⛄> I don't think it's deliberate vandalism of the data. I think there is ill intent. But the data is corrupted if it isn't flagged/corrupted. I have not actually watched the GOSA overnight, so my flag would have been as lacking in base as the entry itself.
10:52:32 <Katie ⛄> *DON'T think there is ill intent
10:52:47 <Katie ⛄> and *flagged/deleted
10:52:48 <Katie ⛄> sheesh
10:53:33 <3> well, I cannot think why they would be putting in ghost eruptions...but I hope you are right Katie
10:56:17 <88> we went through this discussion before and i even emailed support but was 'chastised' for my comments about it
10:57:03 <3> I think you could safely flag the 0156 Joe, you watched the overnight. Then it would be gone.
10:58:40 <88> done and my comment was respectful this time :)
10:59:02 <Katie ⛄> Yes, this is a repeat occurence. I think it's best to
10:59:39 <Katie ⛄> just treat data as data. If you have evidence to contrary, flag with your observations
11:00:19 <88> :thumbsup: I attempt to
11:00:27 <Katie ⛄> :thumbsup:
11:02:12 <3> thanks Joe. Sorry you were chastised for your comments. I know it is a touchy subject, yet I think you are fair in your observations.
11:07:57 <88> I keep in the back of my mind where the was a similar occurrence of false posts that sent gazers to a geyser miles from the basinn many gazers were mad about it... after the person was talked they became an asset to agt
11:08:33 <88> to GT
11:09:46 <3> :thumbsup:
11:14:38 <.don> Lion?
11:15:09 <3> yep, initial
11:38:36 <CD> OF
12:03:15 <Betty> wow, looks like a lot new snow
12:03:19 <Betty> hi all
12:05:09 <Dave from B> cancer causing agent even made it to our streets
12:05:26 <Betty> hi Dave from B
12:05:41 <Dave from B> Hi Betty.
12:06:10 <Dave from B> I seemed to have lost my copy of the picture we took with Kevin. Can you email me a copy?
12:06:28 <Betty> sure
12:06:58 <Dave from B> Thanks! It's going up on the wall behind me
12:07:18 <Betty> :thumbsup:
12:07:50 <Betty> we are at a balmy 55
12:11:27 <CraigC> alo
12:11:44 <CraigC> what does that old faithful note mean?
12:12:12 <Dave from B> #$%^&^&*&*
12:12:51 <Dave from B> If you understand that, you will understand the note
12:13:48 <88> it is bovine scatology
12:13:57 <Dave from B> hahaha
12:17:48 <CraigC> aha, I read the earlier chat, and remember this same person did entries before, and the response here in chat about it
12:18:25 <Betty> Dave from B, picture is on the way :-)
12:23:40 <Dave from B> Thanks, Betty
12:26:16 <Betty> hi CraigC, 88
12:26:23 <CraigC> Betty, howdy
12:34:19 <Betty> daisy
13:25:25 <Betty> OF
13:30:24 <MJ> CAM-OP...Thank-You for the close view of OF. I Appreciate Your Dedication.
14:00:35 <Betty> Lion or indy steam?
14:00:55 <Betty> on static
14:01:29 <3> I don't think the cam op is on chat
14:02:05 <Betty> yes, unfortunately. hi 3
14:02:16 <3> Hi Betty. That is a lot of steam
14:02:49 <3> Pholli left too, so she cannot check for us
14:05:41 <3> steam gone now
14:31:18 <Betty> :daisy:
14:34:06 <DeletedTeakettl> re: all the discussion about our ill informed data entrant—wasn't aware asking folks to not be jerks in their flag comments was such an unreasonable request
14:34:47 <Pholli> Sorry 3, was upstairs. Heard it was beehive though
14:34:49 <KorbenC> DeletedTeakettle, I dont see any flags on any of his entries?
14:35:49 <KorbenC> I entered
14:35:53 <3> I have a question for you DT, if an entry gets 2 flags, then it disappears, correct? and the person who posted can no longer see the flag comments? I know some have not been so nice, yet to see the flag comments might be helpful for future posting
14:36:01 <KorbenC> Thanks Pholli
14:36:24 <3> Thanks Pholli. It was a lot of steam so we thought it might have been
14:36:42 <DeletedTeakettl> Y'all know this is my drumbeat by now. Treat a newbie as you'd like to be treated.
14:37:17 <3> what about my question? If it gets double flagged, it disappears and they can no longer see the comment, is that correct?
14:37:22 <DeletedTeakettl> Right, flag deletion is something I (personally, not speaking for the GT team as a whole) would like to do away with
14:37:31 <DeletedTeakettl> give me time to type, geez
14:38:02 <3> sorry DT
14:38:05 <KorbenC> I assume you removed all the flags that were mean? I don't see any flags on their entry.
14:38:14 <DeletedTeakettl> I cannot remember if email notifications on flags provide the flag comments—but I think they don't, so that could be something we could change
14:38:31 <3> Korben, the 0156 in basin entry was double flagged and is now gone
14:38:39 <KorbenC> :thumbsup:
14:38:46 <KorbenC> DT, emails dont include comments
14:39:19 <DeletedTeakettl> I have removed no flags. I can however go into the backend and see the text of flags for deleted entries
14:39:30 <3> it might be helpful for the person who was flagged to learn why their entry was deleted
14:39:39 <DeletedTeakettl> We've been emailing with them
14:40:51 <DeletedTeakettl> If I thought there was trolling behaviour involved their entering privileges would have already been revoked
14:42:36 <DeletedTeakettl> A tough situation when you're trying to educate someone who is new and seems to have genuine interest, but also keep in mind database integrity
14:43:38 <DeletedTeakettl> By all means, vent your frustrations here—though keep in mind they may stumble across the chatpage and read what you've written about them.
14:45:55 <3> the comments today have not been mean, only questioning why they would write the notes they did
14:48:12 <DeletedTeakettl> I'm not necessarily talking about comments made today :)
14:48:37 <3> got it
14:55:29 <Dave from B> DeletedTeakettle, while you're here...how can someone enter data in GT without a real name attached? That seems odd to me
14:56:12 <DeletedTeakettl> Anyone can make an account with any first/last name they want. We can't check people's identities.
14:57:16 <Dave from B> When you use GT for research do you take into account who has made the entries you are interested in?
14:57:30 <DeletedTeakettl> (If anyone is looking for an example of a flag that includes questions about the observation, here ya go: https://geysertimes.org/note.php?id=34034 )
14:58:14 <CD> DeletedTeakettle, Thanks for the example
14:59:23 <DeletedTeakettl> I consider it slightly if I'm trying to do data cleaning. Usually if something weird pops up and it's not an observer known to me, that just means I take a closer look and hop over to a webcam capture/look at secondary entries
15:00:10 <Dave from B> Great. I've always wondered how data analyzers take entrants into account
15:00:20 <DeletedTeakettl> The danger here is that random researcher unconnected to the gazer community has no way of telling which users are reputable, and they may not even be looking at observer information if they're working with 1000s and 1000s of data points
15:01:00 <Dave from B> Very true
15:01:16 <DeletedTeakettl> I've got guidance for researchers that I've slowly been drafting which will tell them to check the number of flag deleted eruptions vs. eruptions entered. If it's a high ratio, then probably best to remove entries associated with that user from analysis
15:02:15 <DeletedTeakettl> Our community is pretty good at removing blantantly false data. So in a dataset of 10000 entries, if 5 have problems, it doesn't end up mattering much
15:02:43 <Dave from B> DeletedTeakettle, I appreciate the insights. Always nice to know how so much thought goes into trying to make the data "better"
15:03:01 <Dave from B> Sorry, I have to run.
15:03:19 <DeletedTeakettl> cheers
15:06:09 <CD> OF
15:06:18 <CD> Nevermind :)
15:07:09 <CD> Nevermind (x2)
15:07:25 <DeletedTeakettl> lol
15:09:59 <DeletedTeakettl> Final word and then I'll get off my soapbox: I'm such a stickler about the "fantasy entry" comments because they are unhelpful (and kinda mean!) to a user making genuine observations. "I reviewed the webcam capture and did not see an eruption at the time" or whatever is so much more helpful to both the user and consumer of the data, who knows exactly why the entry was flagged.
15:10:22 <Katie ⛄> :thumbsup:
15:10:31 <CD> :thumbsup:
16:37:53 <KorbenC> Good pool at Grand
19:58:01 <KorbenC> I added three flags to some of Riverside's notes.