NewsWrangler's dashboard

Thank you, Leslie, for your response.

Of course, the Daily Summary, provided in the settlement link was continuously updated, hourly, and now shows the total history for that date. And, silly me, I didn't take a screen-shot (who knew ;-)

Looking at the hourly summaries, at the bottom of that linked page, shows the following precipitation and conditions, after the last time (5:51pm) referenced in my settlement request:

. .Time . . . . Precip ... Events . . . . Conditions:
6:46 PM .... 0.01 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
6:51 PM .... 0.01 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
6:59 PM .... 0.00 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
7:14 PM .... 0.01 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
7:28 PM .... 0.01 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
7:46 PM .... 0.01 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
7:51 PM .... 0.01 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
8:01 PM .... 0.00 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
8:11 PM .... 0.00 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
8:17 PM .... 0.00 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
8:44 PM .... 0.00 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
8:51 PM .... 0.00 in . . Snow . . . . . Light Snow
9:38 PM .... 0.00 in . . . . . . . . . . . . Overcast
9:51 PM .... 0.00 in . . . . . . . . . . . . Overcast
10:51 PM .... N/A . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overcast
11:51 PM .... N/A . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scattered Clouds

That totals an additional .06" of precipitation.

Now, comes the tricky part -- as converting precipitation into snow is not an exact science (as I've learned in looking at all of this).

At <http://forum.onlineconversion.com/arc...>, at the bottom of the page, there is a reference to snow conversion:

For a really detailed study, see the following very informative report (127 pages) at the Meteorology Education & Training website of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research: <http://www.meted.ucar.edu/norlat/snow...>

That report proposes a classification of snow into six main categories, with corresponding mean snow/water ratios as follows:

4:1 - very heavy snow
7:1 - heavy snow
10:1 - average snow
15:1 - light snow
20:1 - very light snow
25:1 - ultra light snow

So, while one could use the "15:1" ratio for the "light snow" condition, the conversion is also affected by the temperature :-( as is noted in that same reference.

Anyhow, applying the "somewhat faulty" 15:1 ratio to the .06" of precipitation =
.06 x 15 = 0.9" snow

Adding .9" snow to the amount I reported at 5:51pm (8.70") =
8.70" + .9 " = 10.6" -- which is a difference of 0.2" snow from the total reported for the entire day (10.8") [less than 1/4" difference]

Calculating in the reverse (subtracting from the day's total): 10.8" - .9" = 9.9" at 6:00pm

This is likely wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much information ... but I was curious, I guess.

And, I do understand that you probably can't accept this math as an authoritative source.

I also know that you can't un-void a question -- and even if HD did settle this, are wagers and percentages saved (internally), once the question has been voided?

Soooo ... it's too bad the settlement request didn't get picked up sooner --- (you may want to add this "information" to the new "weather rules"-- such that "hourly" questions cannot be accepted -- only "daily totals" to prevent something like this in the future) ... I had made some great, and risky, predictions in this market!

Thanks again for your kind response.

- Roger

You could leave it suspended, and wait for a week or two for any news to filter out.

When some other celebrities and notables have been incarcerated, some news concerning their activities has been reported in the press.

Certainly, Lord Black is/was a notable, and Lady Black has yet to make her first permitted bi-monthly visit.

(then again, it could be reported that he is doing "kitchen and yard work" -- resulting in a void anyway ;-)

my cent-cent worth

I'd cheer-lead for email notifications of voided questions as well -- that would make it much easier to keep track of that "bouncing cash balance".

I support the rules amendment referred to in the OP:

An amendment I propose making to the rules is as follows:
All questions should provide context in which they are created (e.g. through linking to a relevant news story). If the question is potentially contentious (e.g. about loss of life) then it must be in the context of a mainstream news story

As a news site we need to be able to follow the news that other news sources are following however we also need to avoid the risk of becoming considered a 'death casino'.

In my view, virtually any question has the potential of becoming contentious. A partial, and random list:

capital punishment
child slave trade
killing animals or torturing pets
gun control
sex offenders
electoral college
abortion
genocide
civil rights
drug testing
national identity card
religion
censorship
stem cell research
gays in the military
life support and/or removing life support
child abuse
European Union
school prayer
Guantanamo Bay
same sex marriage
whaling
DNA database
animals used for testing
official language for a country

That users care about death, war and life is "a good thing" -- and ought be encouraged.

To try to eliminate it from "the news" is unlikely.

Can someone settle this soon?

(I know it's weekend ;-)

Will Cleveland, Oh recieve 10 inches of snow...

Thanks!

Historically, there have been a number of major US institutions that remained on standard time year round... however that was pre-web, and I don't know how many, if any, still have that practice. The point is, keeping the servers on standard time is not without precedent ;-)

Ideally, the board would be configured for user-preference localization (user settings) such that any user (world-wide) could set their own time-offset from GMT (or UTC). I dunno how much of a hurdle that would be for HD to implement.

It's back up and running now ...

I ought add ... I received one other email, earlier today, that was accurate.

The accurate one had one prediction in a market.

The inaccurate one had multiple winning predictions in the same market.

Ditto the above -- I just received an email advising "In total you gained H$1 on this question."

Actual net amount (gain) was H$1,830.91.

Also ditto the sentiment of InfernalMachine -- this is a very cool feature!

Nigel,

As I understand the proposed amendment, I don't know that it will solve the issue.

Adding "Will either Reuters or the AP report that nn numbers of American soldiers were killed in Iraq in mm/yyyy?" isn't likely to make it any less contentious.

Ideally, it would -- but rationality and emotions are likely to perceive the question differently.

That said, any enhancement is welcome.

[FYI, I haven't participated or wagered in any of these markets.]