Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
Too much information. Liked Phateye for what it was, liked eddyflower for what it is. Eddyflower doesn't replace the simplicty of Phateye. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
I personally liked the old flows as they were sorted by drainage, not alphabetical, and it was easier to make sense of what was happening geographically with tributaries etc. I agree with Dan, too much info in once clustered space.

It would be nice to have links to both a simple flows page that was color coded like the old one, and keep the run descriptions separate.

The other problem with the eddyflower flows is that there are a number of gauges that don't work (poudre), lots of "visual", and some empty spots. Day to day during kayaking season, the flows page is probably what we use the most. Making it user friendly and simple like the old one was top notch and the interface did not need to be improved in my opinion.

I think a potential improvement would be listing the low, medium, and high levels so that folks can see what the values for the color coding are.

Bring back the flows!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Yo buzzards!

Keep the feedback comin'! We've got time to make the flows tight before spring run off.

Try out the “My Favorites” feature which allows you to select exactly which runs you want listed i.e. remove runs with visual gauges or no flows. Mouse over the flow level to get the Flow Level Legend, if you prefer we can add the legend to the bottom of the page. As for Drainage that is a bit sticky...some love drainage some don't...we have "Location" displayed. We can easily add a drainage column and sort by drainage if that's the call.

Paul (eddyflower guy)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,843 Posts
Another vote for by drainages. Also flows need to be seperated from the full list of runs. That is just too much beta.

Obviously any of us who use it much will work on a favorite list to view and it will be better still.

But for people who dont take the time to set that up, a list more silmilar to the original would be best.

I actually think I might prefer the original list even to a well organized favorites. I like to run through the state by drainage. Even though i wont be headed to many of the places regularly, and might not include them in my favorites, it is nice to see how the state is "running off".

Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
I agree that I liked the general layout of the old system better. Definately sort by drainage. I also agree that you don't need a gauge for every individual section as it makes it appear overcrowded and is difficult to read. It'd be better to just list one gauge for multiple sections, i.e. having a separate flow listed for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Narrows is unnecessary.

COUNT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
I'm hearing you guys loud and clear. Not a problem, we'll work on it and have something up in a week or two for more feedback.

Any suggestions on improving the old model?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
Have a 3-day running average flow along with the instanteneous. I ususally look at the graph to see if flows are coming up or dropping down, this would save me a step. Having both flows, however could be confusing for some. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
You might cross-reference CRC I and II to get all the runs up.

I don't see Steamboat town run (Yampa @ Stmbt) on the list. Maybe I missed it.

You could add the Slater Creek

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/uv/?site_no=09255000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060


Elkhead Creek

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/uv/?site_no=09246200&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060

and Little Snake gauges

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/uv/?site_no=09253000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060

These may be obscure, but who cares.

Also, you don't have to change the Eddyflower page if you creat a column that listed "Drainage". If you could click on the heading and sort by drainage, that would do the trick for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Another vote for categories by drainage. I'd also like to see the Northern N.M. runs previously listed be part of the default setting. Not the scenic floats on Eddyflower, but the goods- Embudo, Pueblo, UTB, LTB, Pilar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Barrel Springs is listed as medium, maybe it's medium if you're GI Joe. There's about 40 cfs in there. If you can get the reading for the SHoshone Power Plant and subtract that from Colorado at Dotsero you would have the flow in Barrel. X-cel energy probably has that info available. If they don't have real-time they would have historical and you could just make a spreadsheet of average historical and subtract that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Paul

The site looks pretty sick. The name is not very though, maybe there could be 2 versions, Eddy FLower and Bad Ass *****'s on the River. Anyway I tried to search California Class V+ and it crashed. That is pretty much the most important search in the Western US, your site should stick that one. Plus your Montana section is pretty weak. Overall I'm impressed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
499 Posts
good concept but it needs a lot of work

Yeah I'll second the vote for getting rid of all the visual guages. No need for them. Removing all the duplicate gauges would also clean up a lot of the clutter, have one gauge linked to several runs instead of each run indavidually linked to the same guage. Or something like that. Maybe you could add a link to the "classic" flow page. Same comments for the PDA flow page, honestly way too cluttered. The one feature I really do like is to filter by level. Then the gauges are listed descending from the highest levels.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top