Who Posts Changes

[jimmnn]

Do submissions for database posting go thru any sort of approval process, hopefully with a local Colorado moderator?

This one still has me laughing, I know what it is, but it's certainly not accurate as posted.

1515 5eb D HYLAND HILLS TAC Hyland Hills Fire Tactical Jefferson County

Jim<

 

[jimmnn]

Correct Info

1. Hyland Hills is in Adams County and does not have a fire department.

2. This is Hyland Rescue Team Ambulance car to car id and they serve the communities of Genesee, Idledale, Lookout Mountain, and Mount Vernon indeed in Jefferson County.

http://www.highlandrescue.org/

Jim<

 

[STiMULi]

Rather than starting a thread about it you should make a new submission and inform the DB Admin as to what needs changing.

You are the approval process. When you see a mistake let someone know about it. If there is a conflict, there are a number of tools available to verify the information but one of the best tools is the listener.

The best resource is those that participate in the agencies listed or have a great familiarity with those radio resources.

We always thank you for any submission including the smallest changes from spelling to Descriptions or just the addition of a PL tone

 

[Todd-NG]

Rather than starting a thread about it you should make a new submission and inform the DB Admin as to what needs changing.

You are the approval process. When you see a mistake let someone know about it. If there is a conflict, there are a number of tools available to verify the information but one of the best tools is the listener.

The best resource is those that participate in the agencies listed or have a great familiarity with those radio resources.

We always thank you for any submission including the smallest changes from spelling to Descriptions or just the addition of a PL tone

Not to start an argument over it but Jim did ask a valid question. "Do submissions for database posting go thru any sort of approval process, hopefully with a local Colorado moderator?" We have seen numerous times where the database was set just fine then someone comes along and submits changes that are inaccurate. If "WE" are the approval process and submit the corrections who's to say that the person that submitted the wrong information won't turn around and change it back the wrong way again.

If this had been an isolated incident then yes, you are right; Jim should have just submitted the changes. But it's not, it's an on going problem and Jim was right to bring this to everyone's attention. I would be willing to bet that there have been several instances where he has quietly made submission changes without starting a thread about it.

 

[mpg0515]

Do submissions for database posting go thru any sort of approval process, hopefully with a local Colorado moderator?

This one still has me laughing, I know what it is, but it's certainly not accurate as posted.

1515 5eb D HYLAND HILLS TAC Hyland Hills Fire Tactical Jefferson County

Jim<

My concerns were questioned long ago.... Except no one seemed to agree/understand what I was questioning. Oh well, like I said, I am just glad that I have the right info.

http://radioreference.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29929

 

[greenthumb]

Do submissions for database posting go thru any sort of approval process, hopefully with a local Colorado moderator?

This one still has me laughing, I know what it is, but it's certainly not accurate as posted.

I worked this submission in. All moderators here have to weigh the overall submission credibility with the user who submitted it. The moderators don't have the all-encompassing knowledge of everything that is going on and cannot know every little agency, where it is, and what talk groups/frequencies are correct and what are not. If we knew all of this first hand, we would work the information into the database ourselves and wouldn't need the help of people submitting data.

I worked the information in because the submitter had what he claimed to be display names for them, and the submission seemed legitimate. Again - we can't verify EVERYTHING that is sent in, and openly solicit the assistance of other users if an erroneous submission is worked into the database.

Along these same lines, I keep an eye on this forum because people will post needed frequencies and talk groups and not submit them to the datatbase. This is where the system is broken from the user end, too.

If you can assist us with the correct information, by all means help us out and tell us what it is supposed to be instead of making a public mockery of what happened.

You're asking for the system to be fixed, but not helping out at all - and that is disappointing because you can be an asset for the information here.

 

[STiMULi]

I started this post last night and much of it has been said but I will post it anyway
====

I do not handle CO. I see that multiple people handle this state.

In Arizona I use the FCC if there is a question otherwise no there is no approval other than my knowledge of the bandplan and radio services.

I would bet it is the same way in CO.

I live in a BIG state. Just like CO. I can't hear it all. I depend on others to give good information and then the rest to let me know if I made a mistake or the information I received was wrong.

Check the areas that you listen to often. Use the color codes for time since last updated to help you help others.

 

[jimmnn]

I started this post last night and much of it has been said but I will post it anyway
====

I do not handle CO. I see that multiple people handle this state.

And I appreciate that. Just wondering why if we have many excellent local, Colorado admins we need to have out of state folks constantly adding and modifying the database, one in particular out of state admin has modified added and deleted just about every county and many of the trunked systems and regrettably the information was correct to begin with and is now much less accurate. More importantly I almost wonder why an out of state admin even has access to the Colorado database for modifications, if we have adequate in-state coverage?

In Arizona I use the FCC if there is a question otherwise no there is no approval other than my knowledge of the bandplan and radio services.

FCC data is extremely inaccurate here and that would not be a recommend way to go locally.

I would bet it is the same way in CO.

Not really.

I live in a BIG state. Just like CO. I can't hear it all. I depend on others to give good information and then the rest to let me know if I made a mistake or the information I received was wrong.

We indeed can not hear it all either but luckily we have a network of dispatchers thruout the state that can hear pretty much all of it.

I personally do not have the time or energy to now submit corrections for almost every county in the state, because they have been changed by out of state admins to reflect the FCC lists. Please realize these changes and modifications have only occurred in about the last 6 weeks.

Check the areas that you listen to often. Use the color codes for time since last updated to help you help others.

Thank you

Jim<

 

[Steve2003]

I think the database admins for Colorado should be voted into position by colorado members. This way everyone could quit complaining about who moderates the fourm. I agree that only people in CO should manage the database for the state.

 

[Scan-Denver]

I agree that only people in CO should manage the database for the state.

Well stated, perhaps one day this will happen.

 

[greenthumb]

Well stated, perhaps one day this will happen.

Who says that it's not?

My point is that everyone here needs to be part of the solution, not the problem. The admins. can only work into the database that which is given to them. Once the data is received, some scrutinizing of it takes place - but this is only the beginning. Other users (such as yourselves) need to take a look at it and let us know if there are discrepancies. Earlier in this thread, there was mention of the possibility that talk groups or channels could get switched several times. The admins. here are smart enough to see that and, as an example, think "hey, I have conflicting submissions for TG 1500 three times in the past two days" and make mention of it in the forums for further clarification amongst the users. I have done this on a few occasions and it has worked out well. Another admin. did the same when there was an issue with Boulder county frequencies a while back. We (the admins) WANT to work with everyone here - this site won't work without that cooperation, but sometimes you guys are not the easiest bunch to work with. I see a lot of evaluation and comments from the "sidelines" instead of people stepping out and "playing ball."

Help us out - please.

 

[Scan-Denver]

And the point several of us Coloradoans are trying to get across is the database for Colorado should be administered by only Colorado residents - meaning only Coloradoans should be admins for the Colorado Database and for the Colorado forum for that matter.

But this isn't my web site and I don't get to make those decisions, but as a few of my fellow Coloradoans have said, this would be a better way to administer changes to the database that reflect Colorado. We know who the veteran scanner buffs are here in the state and who has the most knowledge on systems, frequencies, talkgroups, pl tones, etc, etc.

In short, we know who to turn to if there is a question about a system in Colorado - therefore it only seems logical that Coloradoans be the the database admin for Colorado.

 

[greenthumb]

And the point several of us Coloradoans are trying to get across is the database for Colorado should be administered by only Colorado residents - meaning only Coloradoans should be admins for the Colorado Database and for the Colorado forum for that matter.

And I am here to tell you that, of the three admins "assigned" to Colorado (there are numerous other "global" admins.) that at least two live in Colorado. This is not a valid argument because most (if not all) of the database work is done by admins who live here. This argument is just not valid.

But this isn't my web site and I don't get to make those decisions, but as a few of my fellow Coloradoans have said, this would be a better way to administer changes to the database that reflect Colorado. We know who the veteran scanner buffs are here in the state and who has the most knowledge on systems, frequencies, talkgroups, pl tones, etc, etc.

Absolutely true, and the admins who are doing the work strive to have good data. However, as I have mentioned, those "veteran scanner buffs" who have the "most knowledge on systems, frequencies, talk groups, PL tones, etc." are not helping with the data. They are doing exactly what is going on in this thread - sitting on the sidelines and criticizing what is going on. If the people doing the criticizing feel this strongly about the quality of the data in the database, step onto the field and help us get it right.

In short, we know who to turn to if there is a question about a system in Colorado - therefore it only seems logical that Coloradoans be the the database admin for Colorado.

...and they are. They may not be as knowledgeable about everything that is going on as others are here, but they are responsible people who are striving for the greater good of the scanning community in Colorado - and aren't getting much help.

Think about how many frequencies, talk groups, and sites are identified collectively in these forums, but are never submitted to the database. Everywhere that you see me post "...added to the db" in a thread is where this has happened. This is a prime example of how we (admins) are not getting much help.

 

[mpg0515]

I think that part of the problem is that some of us are tired of seeing the info entered incorrectly.... So, rather than having it listed wrong, it wont be listed at all.

I submitted a full Larimer County frequency list (directly from the Sheriff's Office), all the info was right for a while, then others come in and add stuff(wrong info). Then I try again to have it corrected and somehow it gets even more jacked up!

 

[Scan-Denver]

And I am here to tell you that, of the three admins "assigned" to Colorado (there are numerous other "global" admins.) that at least two live in Colorado. This is not a valid argument because most (if not all) of the database work is done by admins who live here. This argument is just not valid.



Absolutely true, and the admins who are doing the work strive to have good data. However, as I have mentioned, those "veteran scanner buffs" who have the "most knowledge on systems, frequencies, talk groups, PL tones, etc." are not helping with the data. They are doing exactly what is going on in this thread - sitting on the sidelines and criticizing what is going on. If the people doing the criticizing feel this strongly about the quality of the data in the database, step onto the field and help us get it right.



...and they are. They may not be as knowledgeable about everything that is going on as others are here, but they are responsible people who are striving for the greater good of the scanning community in Colorado - and aren't getting much help.

Think about how many frequencies, talk groups, and sites are identified collectively in these forums, but are never submitted to the database. Everywhere that you see me post "...added to the db" in a thread is where this has happened. This is a prime example of how we (admins) are not getting much help.

A suggestion then to prevent errors, perhaps whoever in Colordo is adding or making changes to the database could consult with those who are knowledgeable on the systems in question.

This is just my opinion of course, but if what you say is true that most of the changes are done by admins who live in Colorado - then if would seem to me that checking with those who have the correct info is the smart thing to do - you know, get it right the first time.

I don't mean to sound rude or anything derogatory - just relaying some suggestions.

 

[Scan-Denver]

I'm expecting DTRS_Master to chime in any minute now ! :twisted:

 

[greenthumb]

I'm expecting DTRS_Master to chime in any minute now ! :twisted:

Just what we need...

Anyway, those are fine suggestions, Scan_Denver, so how about this:

New Data: Admins work it in as they have been, and if anyone finds a discrepancy in the data, they bring it up in an appropriately titled new forum thread and identify the error and provide the suggested correction. After a suitable amount of time without discussion, or an agreement has been made as to what the correction should be, the user who initiated the thread will submit the data to the database for correction and the admins will work it in.

Data Corrections: Initiate an appropriately titled new forum thread and identify the error and provide the suggested correction. After a suitable amount of time without discussion, or an agreement has been made as to what the correction should be, the user who initiated the thread will submit the data to the database for correction and the admins will work it in.

Does this sound like a plausible solution that everyone can participate in?

 

[jimmnn]

Now even better yet I vote for only Colorado admins manage the changes or additions to the Colorado database, it could work so well.

Jim<

 

[greenthumb]

Now even better yet I vote for only Colorado admins manage the changes or additions to the Colorado database, it could work so well.

Okay, let's get this out in the open - what admin/admins do you take issue with, and why?

I'd like to put this discussion to bed so that we all can move on in life

BTW, what is TG 1515 supposed to be so that the original issue brought up in this thread is resolved, too.

 

[jimmnn]

Okay, let's get this out in the open - what admin/admins do you take issue with, and why?

I'd like to put this discussion to bed so that we all can move on in life

BTW, what is TG 1515 supposed to be so that the original issue brought up in this thread is resolved, too.

Highland Rescue Team Tac Channel.

And Englewood has not been using VHF channels for weeks.

Jim<