AI.Dave said..
its a bit clunky isnt it, especially compared to windy and the commercial apps.

but 3 big improvements which make it gold compared to the apps
- 7 day hourly forecast
- 4 forecast updates per day
- wind observations that havent been averaged or mucked around with

Also I find BOM and its ACCESS and ACCESS-C forecasts the most accurate for tassie.

ACCESS-C is a 2 day high resolution forecast which will let you see local variations. You can see it on windy.com, just change the forecast model.. Way better to look at than meteye

Great Tips cheers

Can anyone help me here. I hate the new site but I'm really trying to learn my way around. ('surely it can't be that bad' I thinks to myself)..
But I live a few minutes from the bellambi weather station, so I use it all the time to make decisions as to when/where/what to take. This: www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60901/IDN60901.94749.shtml
For the life of me I can't find my way to this through the new site. Best I can find is to allow it to use my location, where it then selects bellambi as closest and I get this www.bom.gov.au/location/australia/new-south-wales/illawarra/o113322963-corrimal/accessible-observations
Useful enough but what if I'm at work in Sydney and want to start dreaming of an after work sail and bellambi isn't my closest station?

It shouldn't be this hard to work out! Or maybe I'm just slow.?

Edit: what I want is this. www.bom.gov.au/nsw/observations/sydneymap.shtml
It still exists but how the hell do you get there from the new site?!

haha your tax payer dollars at work delmar good forecasts, sucky website

i think the new site is meant to revolve around locations as the starting point, not forecasts or observations

Process i use is
1. site search to find the location
2. make the location a favourite location (get back to it quickly next time and it stays on your home screen)
3. Use Today to see the forecast, Past to look at observations.

I like Text only table, gives a quick view of the hourly wind forecast for next 7 days

elmo said..
Possibly this
www.bom.gov.au/nsw/observations/sydney.shtml

or

www.bom.gov.au/nsw/observations/nswall.shtml

Sure but that doesn't answer my question - how does one get to them from the new site?

delmar71 said..
Geez I'm getting grumpy. Everything really was better back in the day.

You're not grumpy, you're just pragmatic (like most of us here). It's pretty simple to me: Steering wheel, brake, accelerator etc. We all learn to use this standard instrumentation in a car. The ADR don't then change everything on a whim to improve user experience, like these f/wits have done. I'm really pissed off about it actually. it's bad enough we have the algae here.

jn1 said..

You're not grumpy, you're just pragmatic (like most of us here). It's pretty simple to me: Steering wheel, brake, accelerator etc. We all learn to use this standard instrumentation in a car. The ADR don't then change everything on a whim to improve user experience, like these f/wits have done. I'm really pissed off about it actually. it's bad enough we have the algae here.

I think the problem is deeper here. It appears they didn't do any analysis of the existing site to figure out what is actually being used and how. Usually this is combo of looking at usage patterns in the analytics and doing interviews with actual users. Given they had a $4 million budget to redesign you'd assume that would happen.

Clearly what ever team designed the new UI doesn't actually use weather forecasts beyond "is it going to rain today / tomorrow / next week and what will the temperature be". Pretty much what you already get from your iPhone / Android weather app. Of course most people like farmers, water sports users, recreational and professional fisher etc. use the site for a little bit more than just that basic info.

stehsegler said..

jn1 said..

You're not grumpy, you're just pragmatic (like most of us here). It's pretty simple to me: Steering wheel, brake, accelerator etc. We all learn to use this standard instrumentation in a car. The ADR don't then change everything on a whim to improve user experience, like these f/wits have done. I'm really pissed off about it actually. it's bad enough we have the algae here.

I think the problem is deeper here. It appears they didn't do any analysis of the existing site to figure out what is actually being used and how. Usually this is combo of looking at usage patterns in the analytics and doing interviews with actual users. Given they had a $4 million budget to redesign you'd assume that would happen.

Clearly what ever team designed the new UI doesn't actually use weather forecasts beyond "is it going to rain today / tomorrow / next week and what will the temperature be". Pretty much what you already get from your iPhone / Android weather app. Of course most people like farmers, water sports users, recreational and professional fisher etc. use the site for a little bit more than just that basic info.

I've been travelling since it came up..no windsurfing. It's good for looking up basic weather in each place and the 7 day forecast..sounds like the wind could be tweaked..
I've given them my feedback.

sboardcrazy said..

I've been travelling since it came up..no windsurfing. It's good for looking up basic weather in each place and the 7 day forecast..sounds like the wind could be tweaked..
I've given them my feedback.

Yeah, if I was a book worm, and deciding weather or not to read a book in the car all day. Govts and corps love to completely redesign their IT systems, and employees have to love it too if they want to keep working there. However, this will never fly with general public. I hope BOM f/wits have realised that.

sboardcrazy said..

They'll be getting sick of me.. I've put in about 4 feedbacks and an email saying the old site wind graphs were better and why,..

Go hard. Make em cry

It's insane to think they will throw even more money at this "fix" what should have been done properly in first place.

the level of waste here is just mind boggling.

WindmanV said..
Cost of new website is $96m

How does one go from $4m to $96m?

EDIT: The previous Age link may not work. This will: www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-05/true-cost-of-bureau-of-meteorology-new-website/105948508

Content-management and website-redesign ... are two different things. The journalism here is a hit piece, designed to be silly - just like all modern media. There is a real and valid need keep systems/processes updated - if you dont think so, we can discuss this point specifically.

The website probably cost more than $4M because good websites do cost decent money, but it wouldn't be anywhere close to $70/90M

delmar71 said..
[I agree with almost everything you say.
Read my post. Notice I said late 2000's? The opinion that cars were generally more reliable (not all of them) between late 2000's through to early last decade is ubiquitous in the car enthusiast world.

I did read your post - EGR, DPF, etc specifically address acid-rain and other poor-air-quality issues in cities.

I could go on with more examples... however, you clearly didn't read mine as evidenced by such a low-effort response. So I'm not about to provide more examples of why newer vehicles are better in almost every way.

apparently the total cost to build the new BOM website was $96.5m

I can't even fathom how that website could cost so much.

www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-23/bureau-of-meteorology-new-website-cost-blowout-to-96-million/106042202?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Is the code of the site public?
Gov projects like this could/should be open?
So anybody skilled enough could take a look what did they get for the money.

Haha, writing code didn't cost that much money. I bet it was wasted on consultancy, architecture, and again, and again. Then someone was actually coding whatever what was asked to code after which they realised they meant something else or requirements changed. Then repeat and repeat and the money is wasted quickly.

Government IT projects are deemed to fail and consultants abuse that. Instead of helping clients be successful, they just squeeze every cent out of them. Would think we know better by now.