Shsg Falls Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Why is this allowed to be published and tolerated? Tonight...Mostly cloudy then becoming cloudy after midnight then becoming mostly cloudy then becoming cloudy towards the morning. A 30 percent chance of showers. Breezy. Lows in the lower 70s. East winds 15 to 20 mph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Why is this allowed to be published and tolerated? Tonight...Mostly cloudy then becoming cloudy after midnight then becoming mostly cloudy then becoming cloudy towards the morning. A 30 percent chance of showers. Breezy. Lows in the lower 70s. East winds 15 to 20 mph. Not sure what office this is, but based on how the low temperature is listed and the winds, this is more than likely not a point and click forecast but rather from the ZFP text product. The point and click when giving the low (high) temperatures says something like "lows near 71". The sky cover description in the point and click will not be that wordy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shsg Falls Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 Not sure what office this is, but based on how the low temperature is listed and the winds, this is more than likely not a point and click forecast but rather from the ZFP text product. The point and click when giving the low (high) temperatures says something like "lows near 71". The sky cover description in the point and click will not be that wordy. O.K. -- zone forecast product. Still doesn't explain why such garbage is published. What's the point except to cause confusion and a quick click to The Weather Channel or Accu-Weather instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Unless southern region uses some other type of formatting, as Mike said that is a zfp product not a point and click product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 O.K. -- zone forecast product. Still doesn't explain why such garbage is published. What's the point except to cause confusion and a quick click to The Weather Channel or Accu-Weather instead? I really do not have a true answer for you, but my offices ZFP does not have sky cover wording like that. Unless this particular office has their settings different or the forecaster edited it, I have no real explanation why it is worded like that. I think several offices do not edit the ZFP anymore though. I would suggest contacting this particular office and ask them about the wording. It cannot hurt to see what they have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I really do not have a true answer for you, but my offices ZFP does not have sky cover wording like that. Unless this particular office has their settings different or the forecaster edited it, I have no real explanation why it is worded like that. I think several offices do not edit the ZFP anymore though. I would suggest contacting this particular office and ask them about the wording. It cannot hurt to see what they have to say. And it doesn't even make sense. Why bother if the only change is that there could be a few breaks in the clouds from time to time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 And it doesn't even make sense. Why bother if the only change is that there could be a few breaks in the clouds from time to time? Yeah, it is rather odd wording. The formatter should have come out with just "mostly cloudy". The thread starter probably should have provided a link to the product so we could see if other zones also have this similar wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Yeah, it is rather odd wording. The formatter should have come out with just "mostly cloudy". The thread starter probably should have provided a link to the product so we could see if other zones also have this similar wording. Even if you want to be more specific, how about something like: Overcast with a few breaks from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokeEater Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 O.K. -- zone forecast product. Still doesn't explain why such garbage is published. What's the point except to cause confusion and a quick click to The Weather Channel or Accu-Weather instead? It's odd wording, but causing confusion? lol Come on. The fact of how angry you are getting, and the fact you never posted a link to said forecast, says you may have an agenda here. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Even if you want to be more specific, how about something like: Overcast with a few breaks from time to time. Come on now, this is the NWS not accuweather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Come on now, this is the NWS not accuweather. LOL no, Accuweather would say: Times of clouds and sun, with a bit of rain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doppler5 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I think the NWS ZFP's are generated from their GFE software now with no required editing. I believe they enter weather elements at least every 3 hours so this is an attempt by the software to handle transitions from mostly cloudy to cloudy skies and back again. Hopefully a better way can be devised to handle that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Analog96 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I think the NWS ZFP's are generated from their GFE software now with no required editing. I believe they enter weather elements at least every 3 hours so this is an attempt by the software to handle transitions from mostly cloudy to cloudy skies and back again. Hopefully a better way can be devised to handle that. This is true, but AFAIK, hand editing is still an option if something crazy gets published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I think the NWS ZFP's are generated from their GFE software now with no required editing. I believe they enter weather elements at least every 3 hours so this is an attempt by the software to handle transitions from mostly cloudy to cloudy skies and back again. Hopefully a better way can be devised to handle that. You are correct except some hand editing can still be done. I have never seen the GFE formatter for the ZFP spit out wording like what was posted above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shsg Falls Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 It's odd wording, but causing confusion? lol Come on. The fact of how angry you are getting, and the fact you never posted a link to said forecast, says you may have an agenda here. Just saying. FLZ068-271215- METRO PALM BEACH- INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...PALM SPRINGS...FLORIDA GARDENS... ABERDEEN...BOCA WEST 158 PM EST SUN FEB 26 2012 .REST OF THIS AFTERNOON AND EVENING...MOSTLY CLOUDY. BREEZY. SLIGHT CHANCE OF SHOWERS. .TONIGHT...MOSTLY CLOUDY THEN BECOMING CLOUDY AFTER MIDNIGHT THEN BECOMING MOSTLY CLOUDY THEN BECOMING CLOUDY TOWARDS THE MORNING. A 30 PERCENT CHANCE OF SHOWERS. BREEZY. LOWS IN THE LOWER 70S. EAST WINDS 15 TO 20 MPH. I won't respond to the rest of your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 FLZ068-271215- METRO PALM BEACH- INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...PALM SPRINGS...FLORIDA GARDENS... ABERDEEN...BOCA WEST 158 PM EST SUN FEB 26 2012 .REST OF THIS AFTERNOON AND EVENING...MOSTLY CLOUDY. BREEZY. SLIGHT CHANCE OF SHOWERS. .TONIGHT...MOSTLY CLOUDY THEN BECOMING CLOUDY AFTER MIDNIGHT THEN BECOMING MOSTLY CLOUDY THEN BECOMING CLOUDY TOWARDS THE MORNING. A 30 PERCENT CHANCE OF SHOWERS. BREEZY. LOWS IN THE LOWER 70S. EAST WINDS 15 TO 20 MPH. Thanks for posting that portion of the ZFP. I actually looked it up and found that there were more than one zone in that product with that really odd wording. The ZFP's issued before and after this one did not have that odd wording from what I saw. It appears it may have been the way the product was run as the first period has "rest of this afternoon and evening" which usually is not the case. Very strange, but that wording should not have been left like that in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I really do not have a true answer for you, but my offices ZFP does not have sky cover wording like that. Unless this particular office has their settings different or the forecaster edited it, I have no real explanation why it is worded like that. I think several offices do not edit the ZFP anymore though. I would suggest contacting this particular office and ask them about the wording. It cannot hurt to see what they have to say. We had a someone post on our FB page that our ZFP wording was funky one time. It was a good heads up and an easy fix. I'm not sure why the OP couldn't have just done the same instead of non-constructively complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eekuasepinniW Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I catch the occasional typo in zones from GYX. Do many offices write them by hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I catch the occasional typo in zones from GYX. Do many offices write them by hand? No, the ZFP is a legacy product run by all formatters now. I'm surprised it's still around really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shsg Falls Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 We had a someone post on our FB page that our ZFP wording was funky one time. It was a good heads up and an easy fix. I'm not sure why the OP couldn't have just done the same instead of non-constructively complaining. #1. Don't use Facebook. #2. Occasionally, NWS WFOs do not respond to e-mails. #3. The issue of improper/confusing wording doesn't just seem to be a MFL WFO problem, I've seen it in other products on the mobile.weather.gov website. #4. Occasionally, the response I get from a specific NWS office (or NCEP branch, like AWC) is incorrect. #5. I know some weather enthusiasts and meteorologists are extremely sensitive and have very fragile egos, but since this product was clearly not acceptable and since I kept it anonymous I didn't think it would present a issue. #6. The original post was a question, it wasn't a criticism, although the wording of the question can be seen as negative. But then again, I'm not sure how I could interpret the forecast wording in question in a positive way. Anything else you aren't sure about regarding my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 #1. Don't use Facebook. #2. Occasionally, NWS WFOs do not respond to e-mails. #3. The issue of improper/confusing wording doesn't just seem to be a MFL WFO problem, I've seen it in other products on the mobile.weather.gov website. #4. Occasionally, the response I get from a specific NWS office (or NCEP branch, like AWC) is incorrect. #5. I know many weather enthusiasts and meteorologists are extremely sensitive and have very fragile egos, but since this product was clearly not acceptable and since I kept it anonymous I didn't think it would present a issue. Anything else you aren't sure about regarding my post? Yeah, why complain on a public forum? What would the end result be? How is that constructive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shsg Falls Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 Yeah, why complain on a public forum? What would the end result be? How is that constructive? Well, I'll consider my first post to be a question and not a complaint, although I should have worded the question more objectively. One poster suggested I had made the forecast up and that I had a agenda, then there is your reply. In any event, as I posted earlier sometimes the NWS office doesn't reply, or when they do it doesn't address the question asked. I encourage you to read MFL's AFD's for a while, there is at least one forecaster there whose AFDs don't make meteorological or linguistic sense (I'm not sure if he is "ESL" (English as a second language or not). If the office in question did reply, I would think there would be a strong likelihood that bias would be present in their answer. The meteorologists on this board tend to be more passionate about their jobs and level of expertise than your average Joe-blow-waiting-for-retirement-NWS employee (or any employee anywhere, for that matter), so I thought I would get a clearer answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Well, I'll consider my first post to be a question and not a complaint, although I should have worded the question more objectively. One poster suggested I had made the forecast up and that I had a agenda, then there is your reply. In any event, as I posted earlier sometimes the NWS office doesn't reply, or when they do it doesn't address the question asked. I encourage you to read MFL's AFD's for a while, there is at least one forecaster there whose AFDs don't make meteorological or linguistic sense (I'm not sure if he is "ESL" (English as a second language or not). If the office in question did reply, I would think there would be a strong likelihood that bias would be present in their answer. The meteorologists on this board tend to be more passionate about their jobs and level of expertise than your average Joe-blow-waiting-for-retirement-NWS employee (or any employee anywhere, for that matter), so I thought I would get a clearer answer. That's hilarious. I'm sure those on this board who work for NWS will be commenting shortly. Oh and thank you for suggesting that other people who do not work for the NWS are not passionate about their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Well, I'll consider my first post to be a question and not a complaint, although I should have worded the question more objectively. One poster suggested I had made the forecast up and that I had a agenda, then there is your reply. In any event, as I posted earlier sometimes the NWS office doesn't reply, or when they do it doesn't address the question asked. I encourage you to read MFL's AFD's for a while, there is at least one forecaster there whose AFDs don't make meteorological or linguistic sense (I'm not sure if he is "ESL" (English as a second language or not). If the office in question did reply, I would think there would be a strong likelihood that bias would be present in their answer. The meteorologists on this board tend to be more passionate about their jobs and level of expertise than your average Joe-blow-waiting-for-retirement-NWS employee (or any employee anywhere, for that matter), so I thought I would get a clearer answer. I suppose, then, by complaining here you hope that an NWS employee at some other office that posts here will use his or her office relationships to get them to change this issue? Instead of trying to do the legwork yourself, you'd rather have others do it for you, yes? I suppose you might have been successful until you decided to insult all NWS employees, but you probably didn't even notice that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Well, I'll consider my first post to be a question and not a complaint, although I should have worded the question more objectively. One poster suggested I had made the forecast up and that I had a agenda, then there is your reply. I think I've identified your problem. Normally, odd or hostile tones don't elicit a good response. Good luck in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 The meteorologists on this board tend to be more passionate about their jobs and level of expertise than your average Joe-blow-waiting-for-retirement-NWS employee (or any employee anywhere, for that matter), so I thought I would get a clearer answer. Nice! And here I was trying to troubleshoot this with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Nice! And here I was trying to troubleshoot this with you. Haha...I saw that from his first post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokeEater Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Well, I'll consider my first post to be a question and not a complaint, although I should have worded the question more objectively. One poster suggested I had made the forecast up and that I had a agenda, then there is your reply. In any event, as I posted earlier sometimes the NWS office doesn't reply, or when they do it doesn't address the question asked. I encourage you to read MFL's AFD's for a while, there is at least one forecaster there whose AFDs don't make meteorological or linguistic sense (I'm not sure if he is "ESL" (English as a second language or not). If the office in question did reply, I would think there would be a strong likelihood that bias would be present in their answer. The meteorologists on this board tend to be more passionate about their jobs and level of expertise than your average Joe-blow-waiting-for-retirement-NWS employee (or any employee anywhere, for that matter), so I thought I would get a clearer answer. Nice job proving my point that you completely have an agenda here. And I didn't say you made it up, just the fact that you hadn't posted the link here. Funny how you went from questioning the way a forecast was written, to trashing NWS mets. Yup, no agenda here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaculaWeather Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 #1. Don't use Facebook. #2. Occasionally, NWS WFOs do not respond to e-mails. #3. The issue of improper/confusing wording doesn't just seem to be a MFL WFO problem, I've seen it in other products on the mobile.weather.gov website. #4. Occasionally, the response I get from a specific NWS office (or NCEP branch, like AWC) is incorrect. #5. I know some weather enthusiasts and meteorologists are extremely sensitive and have very fragile egos, but since this product was clearly not acceptable and since I kept it anonymous I didn't think it would present a issue. #6. The original post was a question, it wasn't a criticism, although the wording of the question can be seen as negative. But then again, I'm not sure how I could interpret the forecast wording in question in a positive way. Anything else you aren't sure about regarding my post? Sounds like you just need to raise some hell with the Southern Zone offices instead of trashing them up here. BTW, never seen that here from the Atlanta office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Well, I'll consider my first post to be a question and not a complaint, although I should have worded the question more objectively. One poster suggested I had made the forecast up and that I had a agenda, then there is your reply. In any event, as I posted earlier sometimes the NWS office doesn't reply, or when they do it doesn't address the question asked. I encourage you to read MFL's AFD's for a while, there is at least one forecaster there whose AFDs don't make meteorological or linguistic sense (I'm not sure if he is "ESL" (English as a second language or not). If the office in question did reply, I would think there would be a strong likelihood that bias would be present in their answer. The meteorologists on this board tend to be more passionate about their jobs and level of expertise than your average Joe-blow-waiting-for-retirement-NWS employee (or any employee anywhere, for that matter), so I thought I would get a clearer answer. I thought your thread was sincere until I read this. There is an actual GFE software related explanation for this, but I'm guessing this thread was more about "exposing" those English as a second language, waiting to retire good for nothing NWS mets, so an explanation is not necessary nor desired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.