Posted on

Official Names

Back in the mid 1990s I learned that one of the microbiologists had gotten the name she'd given to her favorite slime source near Sulphur Cauldron at Mud Volcano made official by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names. This kinda annoyed me, because it seemed self-important, while people who had been observing geyser activity for years had never tried to inflict their names in this fashion. But it also gave me an idea.

I tend to not want to give new features names. I prefer, if needed, to reference new, small holes in relation to nearby, more established features. Hence all those sputs near Grand with designations like Sput A and Sput D and such.

The only names I can remember being responsible for were joint efforts with other gazers like Tomáš Vachuda-- Mortar's "Bottom Vent" and the nearby "Norris Pool." Not much chance of getting names like those approved, and for good reason. (And of course, "The Great Flounder.")

But there were, and still are, a lot of names which have been in use for decades which weren't official. Most of the Sawmill and Grand Groups, for example. Thhe only official names were Grand Geyser, Turban Geyser, Sawmill Geyser, Spasmodic Geyser and Tardy Geyser and Bulger Spring.

So I decided that all those names should get the official treatment. I threw in Link Geyser just because a big geyser like that needed to have its name be nailed down, too.

I proposed fifteen names in total. Twelve were successful, one got changed slightly and two didn't make it.

  • Belgian Pool
  • Bulger Geyser (rename from Bulger Spring)
  • Churn Geyser
  • Crystal Geyser
  • East Triplet Geyser
  • Link Geyser
  • Old Tardy Geyser
  • Oval Spring
  • Penta Geyser
  • Percolator
  • Rift Geyser
  • Slurp Geyser
  • Uncertain Geyser
  • Vent Geyser
  • West Triplet Geyser

I proposed "Percolator", without the "Geyser" suffix because having every name ending in "Geyser" or "Spring" or "Pool" gets tiresome and repetitive. Here was an opportunity to do something different. Unfortunately, one of the reviewers noticed this and commented on it. Rather than fighting for the proposed name, I amended the submission to include "Geyser".

The two names that didn't make it were "Slurp Geyser" and "Crystal Geyser". Another reviewer objected to Slurp because the name "Crystal Springs Satellite Geyser"* was an alternate name, and this person didn't see a need for a change. And of course, that name is dependent on not changing Crystal Spring to Crystal Geyser, so that name needed to stay the same, too. Again, instead of fighting for those changes with someone who showed signs of insisting on those names, I just withdrew the proposals.

I've since learned that proposing geyser names like this will not be accepted. Not sure why, don't really care. Since, other than Slurp, I got all my names through. Although, I do regret not getting Plume Geyser and Morning Geyser made official, or getting Dragon Geyser changed to Aurum Geyser. Maybe I was thinking of saving them for a round two.

* Note: It is USBGN policy to not include apostrophes in names, which makes this name even more ungainly.)

Posted on

Recording Geyser Activity in 1993

I was digging around recently looking for some old geyser data when I came across something that might be of general interest.

Back in 1993 I was working with Rick Hutchinson on recording geyser activity. He let me use some of the TempMentor devices, and I wrote a Mac application so I could access and download and display the data. The TempMentor that I used was inside a self-contained cylinder, about a foot high and about four inches across that provided a waterproof place for the recorder. The sensor itself was in the bottom of the cylinder, so I had to place it directly in the runoff channel of the feature I wanted to record. Fortunately, even back then there was enough space under the boardwalks that I could easily place it, even during the daytime. (When the boardwalks were rebuilt, they were raised, mostly to prevent them from continuing to provide marmot and tree-rat habitat.)

I placed the devices at Grand, West Triplet, and Plume. I also have Castle data, but I think that was from a device Rick placed, as even back then we were not encouraged to go that far off trail.

I still have the data I collected, but it's in a format that I would have to reconstruct. Fortunately, part of the program that I wrote did some processing to look for eruptions. That's what I came across, and it's interesting to look at now, 28 years later. I've attached the text files to this posting, as they are a bit too big to just add as is.

Plume runs from 09 Jul 1993 through 12 Aug 1993, without any gaps in coverage. During that time not only was Plume "going to sleep" but there were also a couple of Giantess eruptions. So the data shows not only the overnight pauses in activity, but the shortened intervals in response to Giantess' eruption. Most of the non-Giantess eruption intervals were around an hour, but in the 36 or so hours afterward, that interval dropped in half.

Most of the time Plume went to sleep around midnight, and woke up around noon, so many of the sleeps were in the twelve hour range, But there are also some that lasted the better part of a day (19 hours in one case). The recovery from Giantess mode was pretty abrupt, too. In one case it there were just four transition intervals before it was back into the hour range. In the other case, there were just three, and then it went to sleep two more intervals later.

West Triplet was also interesting. I moved the Plume recorder there so there's a record from 13 Aug 1993 through 15 Sep 1993. I noted the Rift times in the file, but not sure how/where I got them. Sam Martinez was also doing some recording, and he may have been the source. In any case, the recordings clearly show that the West Triplet eruptions that preceded Rift lasted longer and Rift started about 1/2 hour in (at the time West Triplet would have normally quit.)

Grand activity is in several segments. The first runs from 09 Apr 1993 through 10 Jun 1993, while the second is from 04 Jul 1993 through 15 Sep 1993. The shortest intervals were just under seven hours, while there were no intervals over 12 hours. For back then, that was nice, consistent behavior for it.

Finally, Castle runs from 21 Aug 1993 through 11 Sep 1993. During that time most intervals were eleven hours, give or take. There were one to three minor eruptions a week, and several major eruption intervals between them. The intervals after the minor eruption varied from three to seven hours, and the major eruption interval after that was about an hour longer than usual.

Posted on

GeyserGaming and GeyserTwitter

Now that the Wuhan Bat Cooties panic is going the way of tulipmania, those who didn't visit the park last year are returning and determined to pickup where they left off. Last year's geyser gazing was nice and quiet for the most part, because there wasn't the usual competition to be the center of attention. ("Switch to five" was not the most frequent heard radio phrase, for example.)

This year it seems that people are determined to turn GeyserTimes into a form of Twitter, and to treat their observations as some sort of GeyserGame, where the goal is not to report accurate and useful information, but to be First! to report every big geyser, and to add their opinions on every obscure geyser and spring whose name they just learned last week. Do all that enough times, and it appears people think you get to level up to Geyser Guru.

Worse, some seem to think of their reports as a substitute for Twitter. We are seeing more and more reports of non-geyser animal encounters and other such incidents which should have no place in a database of geyser activity. Or they are using it to report the status of a geyser because there are no other easy places to let people know that something didn't erupt overnight or in the last hour. Reporting "Bijou ie" used to be a joke told while sitting at Grand. Now we have people logging it without any context, which makes it is just noise. And we don't need half a dozen people to "confirm" an eruption of Beehive in the middle of the day. Or a comment on every Fountain eruption about how this one is the most beautiful eruption ever.

The offenders aren't just new people, where ignorance would be a plausible excuse. Long time contributors can be some of the worst offenders. Exploiting bugs in the database software to be First!, for example, or using the database as a substitute for a written logbook or for weblog postings. (By the way, why exactly is it critically important to shout out on the radio a geyser the second it starts, when the eruption only gets logged to the minute?)

GeyserTimes does have a detailed page laying out "how" to report activity. It's hidden away. But what it doesn't have are pages on "what" and "why". What should be reported and what shouldn't be reported, and why you should or should not report something you see.

Another big problem is that the owners of GeyserTimes seem unwilling or unable to enforce any standards. There's no evidence that they are attempting to keep people focused on the purpose of the database.

If you do object to some of the more egregious entries by using the only feedback method available to users, the owners will call you "an ass", but not to your face. When called on this, they hide behind "decisions of the team" to never respond, demonstrating an unwillingness to deal with problems on their site. They also seem to be unable or unwilling to answer inquiries about using the database from an application, or reports of website bugs, so their lack of communication seems to be a systemic problem. So much for encouraging communications.

Solutions? First, better communications between the GeyserTimes owners and their users would help a lot. Answer those emails, and provide a way for users to directly inform observers of problems. Admit that the database gets enough use that there needs to be active administration to catch problematic reports before they sit there for hours uncorrected.

But there could be more. Perhaps the owners of GeyserTimes, or maybe GOSA, should put in the effort to setup moderated forum(s) for people to discuss the activity they see, and a place to report the status of various features, independent of the database. A place where those who really care if Tilt's "Baby" is empty recently can quickly see what others have reported. A place for "unattended" reports from Fan & Mortar. The same for reports for New Crater/Steamboat, now that it has reverted to 1980s mode. A place that will be useful when Giant reactivates, in reporting Grotto marathon status and Bijou pauses. A place for reporting non-geyser incidents and activities. In other words, a place for ephemera that is inappropriate for a permanent database. There seems to be a demonstrated demand for it.

Another solution would be to separate out the GeyserGaming aspect, and give the GeyserGamers what they want. Create separate apps whose purpose is to pander to the GeyserGamers who only care about reporting what they see. Give these entries lesser precedence over those entries from observers actually including observations, until they "level up" enough to be trustworthy. (An example of the difference is that GeyserGamers can't be bothered to put in a duration or height estimate. Doing that would require either waiting until the eruption is over to submit the entry, or to go back in and edit/update the entry.)

In the late 1980s I worked up a "geyser rating system" where I tried to apply objective criteria (duration, interval, height) in ranking geysers. It was mostly successful, with a few weirdnesses. (For example, Old Faithful and Uncertain came out similarly ranked.) Recently I tried updating this, adding some other criteria like accessibility. I might post that information later, in case anyone is interested in stealing this idea and actually implementing it. One problem with any such system is that ratings would change often, as dormancy is a large factor in scoring.

The GeyserGame could also be a paid addon to the GeyserTimes app(s) where the proceeds can be used to compensate the needed moderators and administrators. Or allow a few submissions for free, but you gotta pay for unlimited access. (And paying should count toward scoring, or at least provide evidence that the observer is serious in reporting.)