Printable View
Gotcha. I'm usually running out the door and don't power up the computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
Another tiff: putting location descriptions on pictures.
Digging Becs voice on the hotline though. Makes me feel cheery, even when the forecast is bleary.
I really don't care for the new format. It has become too graphic heavy, and you have to stitch together several discussions to make a coherent assessment of the observed conditions, weather and forecast.
It is also rediculously slow.
Overall it feels more like a large step backward, than a step forward.
Honestly, I having used it for a bit. I think it's pretty poor.
The format has duplicate locations for data all over the places that isn't consistently cross populated. ex: the Front Range Backcountry Avalanche Forecast is reporting an "avalanche near winter park". This data is not available if you look under Observations>Avalanches
I wonder you is actually responsible for the tech side of the website. I'm guessing it is not any of the CAIC forecasters.
I guess no news is good news, but my emails seem to be mostly cut and paste. I don't read them or refer to the site as much as I used to. The accidents page only has deaths listed, but if you look back to past years it was any accident which I found to be informational. I've heard about a ton of people taking "a ride" this year and none are listed. I think the submissions were getting a bit lazy too, such as the Winter Park link which was minimal at best, and the links often don't work. That being said their accident assessments when posted are extremely thorough and informative and I appreciate the relative condition warnings.
I really appreciate what the CAIC does, and you can't blame them for what people are submitting; however at the moment it doesn't seem as useful as it was previously.
There are multiple non-fatality incidents listed under the "Accidents" page. Six of them, in fact. Here is a link to the Accidents page as well as links to all of the non-fatal incidents listed there.
http://avalanche.state.co.us/accidents/colorado/
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=507&accfm=rep
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=508&accfm=rep
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=516&accfm=inv
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=512&accfm=inv
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=517&accfm=inv
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/ac...=542&accfm=rep
As for things like the WP avy not listed under "avalanches," that is because the person submitting the observation did not fill out the "avalanches" section of the obs form. I've noticed this happens a lot. It still appears under Field Reports. I'd be in favor of them removing the avalanches section since most of the time the submission forms aren't filled out correctly and just having everything under field reports.
Sorry I should have been more specific. I meant since the site changed, not since the season started. I might be wrong but I don't think it changed till the end of the calendar year which would only show one.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
And of course if people aren't submitting that these accidents are happening, you can't add them. There should be 3-6 more accident that I've heard of, and my finger isn't exactly on the pulse. :o)
Now that were a few months into it, i'm also not a huge fan of the new site and don't see it as much of an improvement. less convenient. less easy to find what you want and just not super user friendly. does anyone else notice less field obs and av reports being posted now? kinda get the feeling the concept was to make the site more basic and easily digest-able for those new to the BC, CAIC and Avy forecasts, but the end result is a less effective site.