Royal Observatory vs. SpaceWeather.com Wolf number: 159 vs. 117 (09 Jan 2023) what's wrong ?

... to oranges. This is why you cannot take the Spaceweather counts as "gospel" for doing AAVSO solar observing. We have said here in other posts that you will NOT normally get the same sunspot number that is published on that website. Magnetic group counts are different from morphologically and evolutionarily determined groups, and solar astronomers have carefully looked into how the various observers' records can be aggregated into a scientific useful record. We need to be able to compare our data today with that going back to Galileo (and before in some cases) in order to reconstruct the solar cycle record, which means we cannot rely on magnetically determined groups. Galileo didn't have a magnetometer. Please read section 4 of the following paper: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11207-015-0815-8.pdf  .

As Rodney and I have both said previously, the best way to get into solar observing is to simply do it, make your best estimates of groups and careful counting of spots, following the rules set out in the AAVSO solar observing guide and taking into account the common morphologies of sunspot groups and their evolution, and then going back each month and comparing your R to the raw R values listed in the Solar Bulletin to see how your numbers compare to the averages of the other observers. Spaceweather can be used to alert you to the overall activity, but remember that this is a snapshot in time - when YOU look at the sun, some groups will have rotated out of view, others will have rotated into view, some will have died and others will be born. Also note that unless you have a magnetometer on your face instead of eyeballs, you will be identifying groups morphologically, and therefore will not get the same answer that you will see on Spaceweather.  

KL