Login to AccuWeather.com Premium Login to AccuWeather.com Professional Login to AccuWeather.com RadarPlus AccuWeather.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> NOTICE: FORUM GUIDELINES (NEW 1/31/08)!, Read these before posting a topic or reply.
WeatherMatrix
post Jan 31 2008, 08:31 AM
Post #1




Admin
***

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,121
Joined: 6-March 05
From: State College, PA
Member No.: 2





We have developed and posted a new list of guidelines for behavior on the AccuWeather.com Forums.

These items will help keep the board readers coming back to our site, which benefits us all.

Anyone not abiding by these rules will be moderated or banned.

If you would like to discuss any of the guidelines, or would like to suggest additional ones, reply to this message.


--------------------
-- Jesse Ferrell, FORUM ADMIN & MODERATOR

-- AccuWeather.com Meteorologist / Social Media Coordinator

-- My Blog | My Facebook Page




HELPFUL LINKS: MODEL FAQ / WEATHER QUESTIONS | FORUM FAQ / QUESTIONS
STAY ON TOPIC! TALK ABOUT PAST STORMS | TALK ABOUT NON-WEATHER STUFF
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weatherman Tyler
post Jan 31 2008, 07:33 PM
Post #2




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: SuperModerator
Posts: 4,571
Joined: 8-January 08
From: State College, PA
Member No.: 12,145





I think there should be a clutter rule for the treads.

Quoting and then saying "ok" or "no" or "I agree" or "wow" has nothing informative in it. All this does is make the treads dreadfully 100+ pages long!


--------------------
Student Meteorologist Tyler Jankoski
The Pennsylvania State University '14
www.TylersWeather.com




Northwest Connecticut Weather:
www.TylersWeather.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thundercloud
post Jan 31 2008, 09:46 PM
Post #3




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Founding Member
Posts: 4,751
Joined: 7-March 04
From: Baiting Hollow, NY
Member No.: 6





I totally agree. It gets very tedious trying to sift through all the pages and pages of posts, only to find out that half of them add nothing to the discussion. Besides that, who has the time to read 100 pages worth of posts a day? Not me.


--------------------
Artie/NY
B.S. in Meteorology
Daily Hi/Lo & Precip will be posted here: http://thundercloud82.blogspot.com/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
columbiawx
post Jan 31 2008, 10:52 PM
Post #4




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Member
Posts: 463
Joined: 7-January 08
Member No.: 11,991





give a poster a met tag for identification, if said poster can prove he is one. Would be nice to know who on this forum is a professional met. Makes it easier to ask questions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeatherMatrix
post Feb 1 2008, 07:46 AM
Post #5




Admin
***

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,121
Joined: 6-March 05
From: State College, PA
Member No.: 2





QUOTE(columbiawx @ Jan 31 2008, 10:52 PM) *
give a poster a met tag for identification, if said poster can prove he is one. Would be nice to know who on this forum is a professional met. Makes it easier to ask questions.


I have considered that, but the question is: How would you really know that they were a met? I mean, anyone could say that, so what would they offer up as proof?


--------------------
-- Jesse Ferrell, FORUM ADMIN & MODERATOR

-- AccuWeather.com Meteorologist / Social Media Coordinator

-- My Blog | My Facebook Page




HELPFUL LINKS: MODEL FAQ / WEATHER QUESTIONS | FORUM FAQ / QUESTIONS
STAY ON TOPIC! TALK ABOUT PAST STORMS | TALK ABOUT NON-WEATHER STUFF
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_BigN_Sega_Snow_Champion88_*
post Feb 1 2008, 09:00 AM
Post #6







Guests








I think the "zero-tolerance policy" on personal attacks needs to be toned down.

While I can understand not allowing random insults, like you'ren ***hole for example, I do think people should be responsible for the forecasts they issue.

For instance, there is a small, but vocal minority on the boards, who often post absurd forecasts that have no basis at all (all of the models disagree with them, both in terms of QPF and temperature,) and make up any little random fact to justify what they are saying.

Example: Flurries are developing on the northern edge...3-6" for them! Oftentimes, this precipitation is not even reaching the ground. Or, according to the 336 HR run of the GFS 2 weeks ago, this area would get clobbered with snow. Too bad the storm disappeared from that model at 324 hours and has never appeared that robust since, but of course because of the initial apperance, it will "100% guaranteed snow in that area 6+ inches."

Even though there are 100 or 200 regulars on the Current Weather Forum that know these (I think we can call them intelligent trolls,) to be worthless forecasts, but I'm sure there are tons of guests who come on here, just looking at the threads, and by allowing these incorrect forecasts that have NO factual backing to be posted repeatedly, WITHOUT any negative reference, these guests think that this forecast has a realistic chance of happening, when that definitely is NOT the case.

If we cannot criticize them and call them out on their trolling, we're basically encouraging them even more, almost as much as saying it's ok to continue doing it. If they make absurd forecasts, we should be able to refer by name, and say What the heck are you talking about? That's not possible!

This nonsense of allowing everyone to have their own "opinion" is lowering the intelligence of the forums. There's a difference between opinion and trolling. Opinion has to be based on some kind of fact, which these trolls usually have none of.

I have to go to class now, but I can continue my rant later if you want! lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ironwood
post Feb 1 2008, 09:47 AM
Post #7




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,856
Joined: 9-January 08
From: North of the Gulf of Mexico
Member No.: 12,165





I know that it gets tedious passing thorugh page after page of "how much snow are we getting here?" and all, but don't tell that person they can't ask it. That's like making yourself "Opinon police" of the forums. Noone wants that.

This post has been edited by ironwood: Feb 1 2008, 09:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
joesnow
post Feb 11 2008, 08:19 PM
Post #8




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 863
Joined: 11-January 08
From: freehold, nj
Member No.: 12,305





QUOTE(WeatherMatrix @ Feb 1 2008, 07:46 AM) *
I have considered that, but the question is: How would you really know that they were a met? I mean, anyone could say that, so what would they offer up as proof?

you shhould make up a test, and if anyone get higher then a certain perent, they qualify


--------------------
MODELS
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ssd/nwpmodel/html/ecmwf.htm

Freehold New jersey

JOE

what will winter 08-09 be like without weatherwarrior?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
weatherwonder
post Feb 16 2008, 11:08 AM
Post #9




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,188
Joined: 26-January 08
From: Scituate, MA 20 miles south of Boston (on the coast)
Member No.: 13,156





QUOTE(Weatherman Tyler @ Jan 31 2008, 07:33 PM) *
I think there should be a clutter rule for the treads.

Quoting and then saying "ok" or "no" or "I agree" or "wow" has nothing informative in it. All this does is make the treads dreadfully 100+ pages long!

I agree 100% with both of you and have asked many times to please moderate the people with useless one word answers. Now I am being moderated for asking "why" to the same people. If they just included reasoning behind the opinions that they state over and over again page after page then some of us may learn something. I can think of one person in perticular that has over 2500 posts of useless one to five word answers. If people like this were moderated I think the people that actually have opinions take over the posts and add some great insight to current weather. I have also had a problem in the last few days trying to figure out what the definition of a troll is. Is a person considered a troll if they jump into a forum and start complaining that spring is here? How about the people that say over and over that a storm is going to be rain regardless of the conversation on the thread? Im starting to see the trend that people can troll all they want as long as noone answers them. Well thanks for letting me vent and this is a really good thread. Now I hope this gets posted since I am being moderated wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WeatherMatrix
post Feb 18 2008, 01:08 PM
Post #10




Admin
***

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,121
Joined: 6-March 05
From: State College, PA
Member No.: 2





Although most of these comments make sense, I don't think they are realistic from a Forums perspective, where things have to go online in real-time. There's just no way to filter that stuff out.

If you think someone is consistently responding with one-word answers, hit the Report Abuse button and tell us, we may moderate them for a while, to get them out of the habit (we have done that already to several folks).


--------------------
-- Jesse Ferrell, FORUM ADMIN & MODERATOR

-- AccuWeather.com Meteorologist / Social Media Coordinator

-- My Blog | My Facebook Page




HELPFUL LINKS: MODEL FAQ / WEATHER QUESTIONS | FORUM FAQ / QUESTIONS
STAY ON TOPIC! TALK ABOUT PAST STORMS | TALK ABOUT NON-WEATHER STUFF
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rbrtkln
post Feb 20 2008, 03:04 PM
Post #11




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,927
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Middletown, NJ
Member No.: 12,261





Here is an idea. Delete any thread for any storm more than a week away. Here is why.

1. Threads for storms more than a week away are the same for the first 20 pages. Every comment is "Its too early" or "Its ridiculous to even be talking about this storm" or "The models are going to cha cha cha"

2. No one really goes into those threads too often anyway. Everyone is reading and posting into the thread for the closest storm. Once that storm passes, then everyone heads to the next storm. Sometimes I go into a thread for a storm two weeks out out of curiosity and I am the only one in there.

3. The dates for these storms seem to change so often in the long range, that they often get confused with dates and threads for other storms in the long range.

Just food for thought.


--------------------
My Winter 08/09 Snow Tally: 29.1"
My Winter 09/10 Snow Tally: 56.5"
My Winter 10/11 Snow Tally: 54.8"
My Winter 11/12 Snow Tally: 5.7"
My Winter 12/13 Snow Tally: 20.9"
My Winter 13/14 Snow Tally: 58.8"



Everything Else- The most fun you can have with your clothes on. For Real! Not kidding!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
weatherwonder
post Feb 25 2008, 10:07 AM
Post #12




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,188
Joined: 26-January 08
From: Scituate, MA 20 miles south of Boston (on the coast)
Member No.: 13,156





How about starting a thread for model runs? That would cut down on alot of pages. If someone was to compare models they could link to the latest model in the model runs thread. Im not sure if thier is a way to do it like the polls where you cannot reply in the model run thread? Just think how many times someone asks in a thread where can I find those models? Most threads have the same hours of the same model posted 2 or 3 times. Not sure if its possible just an Idea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skeets
post Feb 27 2008, 05:07 PM
Post #13




Rank: Tornado
**

Group: Founding Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 17-May 06
From: Commack, NY
Member No.: 1,894





Just a couple of professional comments on the forum. I've been a journalist for 20 years and running a web site fo the past 8. I'll supply the link if someone is interested, but I'm not advertising here. I'm not a professional weather forecaster and my little home station does not give me enough info to make any type of prediction, but I get a kick out of watching what happens here.

However, I think the level of control asserted by the moderators is dampening the potential conversation.

I understand having to keep people on topic, but the fervor some of the moderators use to do so is a bit over the top.

Isn't this suppose to be fun? Aren't the forums for people to chat and learn? There are so many cases where we are warned about going off topic when I can see no reason for it. Every post cannot feature a forecast, sometimes people just need to comment on what others are saying. Who cares if the threads run to 300 pages, Accuweather should want that many hits, just ask your ad people. And you have an excellent tool set allowing posters to find there way around. I say let it run.

Granted, a level of decorum must be maintained. I do the same thing on my website, but I think some of these thread topics could result in some interesting discussions if the moderators would relax just a bit.

That's my two cents for the day, I will not be hurt when it's ignored. lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th September 2014 - 11:03 PM