Long range thread posting Options

[Louieloy102]

I know this has been voted on before, but it hasn't been voted on for years, so over one third of the members are new. Most members in the midwest and northeast would like to see a 10 day or less thread post range due to far out storms that are in fantasy land, and never come to fruition. Ill create a new poll and see the new consensus.

MODS: I understand if you're not up for a rule change.

This post has been edited by Louieloy102: Feb 17 2013, 08:47 PM

[WinterStorm294]

I say that we leave it the way it is. If you don't like the long range threads, than don't take part in them. Just my thought.....

[Louieloy102]

I say that we leave it the way it is. If you don't like the long range threads, than don't take part in them. Just my thought.....

I'm not saying I'm against it, just want others to voice their opinion.

The midwest thread derailed so much from the original topic I felt this was necessary

[WinterStorm294]

I'm not saying I'm against it, just want others to voice their opinion.

The midwest thread derailed so much from the original topic I felt this was necessary

I'm sorry. I wasn't targeting you with or anyone else for that matter with my comment, I was just voicing my opinion. And you're right, it was getting way off topic in the MW thread.....

[Louieloy102]

I'm sorry. I wasn't targeting you with or anyone else for that matter with my comment, I was just voicing my opinion. And you're right, it was getting way off topic in the MW thread.....

No harm done.

[Louieloy102]

Currently 8 in favor of 10 days and 3 in favor of 15 days.

Not enough of a sample size yet.

[Phased Vort]

I'm not saying I'm against it, just want others to voice their opinion.

The midwest thread derailed so much from the original topic I felt this was necessary

If there was prolonged and exaggerated off-topic posting in one or any thread that are specific to a topic, members should report the posts, and the moderators will review it and consider if the members posting off-topic non stop, should be warned and/or moderated or not.

As far as the rule change, I personally would not support it, as I do not see the real need or reason for it. It would be like telling members to stop looking at the long range GFS or other models past 240, or even past 180 hours, if the reason for this rule change is model weakness and inaccuracy concerning storm potentials in those long ranges.

Will notify WeatherMatrix, so he can voice his stance.

[NYCSuburbs]

Copying this over from the storm thread. Personally I favor 10 days but I'm fine with whatever happens.
I don't care if the rule stays the same or changes to 10 days out, but 10 days out is a huge stretch for details - you saw that with seemingly every other thread where "CMC has a HECS" or "wow take a look at that massive GFS/ECM long range storm" was posted and then hopes got really high, and in most cases did not meet the original longer range hype. I would recommend using 10-15 day range threads, should they be continued, to analyze the pattern for the time frame, how favorable it could be for what type of weather, and in between post long range model eye candy for fun but not with the expectation that whatever potential is shown has to come to fruition, like the feb 16-18 thread when a lot of triple phase talk never materialized.

[WeatherMatrix]

If there was prolonged and exaggerated off-topic posting in one or any thread that are specific to a topic, members should report the posts, and the moderators will review it and consider if the members posting off-topic non stop, should be warned and/or moderated or not.

As far as the rule change, I personally would not support it, as I do not see the real need or reason for it. It would be like telling members to stop looking at the long range GFS or other models past 240, or even past 180 hours, if the reason for this rule change is model weakness and inaccuracy concerning storm potentials in those long ranges.

Will notify WeatherMatrix, so he can voice his stance.

I guess I agree - why would we make this change in days where the ECMWF, now available even more publicly, forecasts out to 25 days? I've not seen the "15-day" rule causing a lot of problems? Threads started for storms that disappear will die of their own accord.

[Blizz]

I guess I agree - why would we make this change in days where the ECMWF, now available even more publicly, forecasts out to 25 days? I've not seen the "15-day" rule causing a lot of problems? Threads started for storms that disappear will die of their own accord.

Agreed, please DO NOT touch this rule.

Many cases storms (or moisture) does end up occurring after long range models such as the GFS depicts 300+ hours out. I see no reason at all to change this rule to 10 days. Isn't this what the forum is for? To follow potential events in a certain time frame. I don't feel we should dictate the users on this forum and prevent them from opening possible interesting scenarios 300+ hours out as that is what this forum is for. I have seen many times in the past where the GFS was very consistent with having a storm (moisture) in the 300+ time frame. Sure the track ends up changing however tracking storms where anyone can participate is what this forum is founded on and we should not limit that. Imagine a 10+ dry spell in the middle of winter, obviously someone is going to want to open a thread if the GFS has been consistent for a few runs with showing a storm affecting a certain region 300+ hours out. If you don't like the idea of long range threads then don't participate in them until they are in your ideal range of interest. But it is selfish to limit others to what they choose to do.... It is not like the long range GFS is completely broken or something.

[Louieloy102]

IMHO, I think that the long range (10+ days) should be kept in a separate new forum, not the long range winter outlook, but a new separate forum.
The mods can move the threads if the threat is still there after day 10 goes through.
Should create a little more work, but not too much to not consider the idea.

[NYCSuburbs]

IMHO, I think that the long range (10+ days) should be kept in a separate new forum, not the long range winter outlook, but a new separate forum.
The mods can move the threads if the threat is still there after day 10 goes through.
Should create a little more work, but not too much to not consider the idea.

I'm just throwing out some random thoughts - not saying I'm in favor of them or that I expect them to happen - although a possibility would be to make a "Long Range (Day 11+) Storm Potentials" thread, either in the current US or long range forum, where possibilities for storms beyond day 10 are discussed to account for uncertainty on whether a storm happens and the specific timing, and once there's still signs of a storm 10 days out, a storm thread would then be opened. Just a possible scenario I thought of... as I said before, I'm fine with whatever happens.

[Louieloy102]

I'm just throwing out some random thoughts - not saying I'm in favor of them or that I expect them to happen - although a possibility would be to make a "Long Range (Day 11+) Storm Potentials" thread, either in the current US or long range forum, where possibilities for storms beyond day 10 are discussed to account for uncertainty on whether a storm happens and the specific timing, and once there's still signs of a storm 10 days out, a storm thread would then be opened. Just a possible scenario I thought of... as I said before, I'm fine with whatever happens.

Agreed.
Long range is more for the possibilities and the timeframes, not specifics "how much IMBY" 13 days out.

[Louieloy102]

15 days or less (current rule) [ 8 ] [23.53%]
10 days or less [ 22 ] [64.71%]
7 days or less [ 4 ] [11.76%]


77% in favor of a rule change.

A long range model forum- (not month/seasonal forum) would be a pretty good idea.