Lurkers will be removed October 1

[Wes Carter]

My opinion is that my opinion doesn't matter. This isn't a government sponsored or sanctioned forum. I'm not sure of the ownership of the URL nor wo pays for the hosting, I'm assuming it's Tim Vasquez. Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant, because the site belongs to someone else and we are guests. If he decides that only people with pink hair and inny bellybuttons can be members there's nothing we can do about it.

That being said, if a person joins and just lurks, how will his membership status lighten the bandwidth load?

I'd have to vote "No", I don't agree but "Yes", he is well within his rights to do so. So I'm not going to pi** and moan.

 

[Helen Rossington]

Why do some people still think they "will be in the danger zone" when they have 23 posts as the post above states. Please see Tim's very first post in the thread.

FROM TIM: This is official notice that on October 1 we will be pruning out dead accounts, lurkers, and all spam zombie accounts that have slipped through over the years. Accounts will be autodeleted for those who have an extremely low post count total (zero or very close to zero) and have been here at least 1-2 months.

So, if you have been here over 1 or 2 months, and you have maybe 3 or less posts, then you have something to worry about. I think everyone is making this a lot harder than it actually is.

OK.... so that was aimed at me!

23 posts IMO was close to zero, as the core of posters here have 1000+ posts, with the next level having 300+ posts....

I won't stress then......at least I now have two more posts to add to my count.

 

[Jason Boggs]

No Helen, that wasn't aimed at you. I just used your example since it was the latest one. I really don't think you have anything to worry about. Literally, if your post count was close to zero, then you might have something to worry about.

I hope you didn't take that as an insult or stab at you. I really meant nothing from it. I was just using you as an example, and like I said, you were the first one I saw.

 

[Mike Johnson]

I think its a reasonable action. That said, I may end up being removed myself. I don't post often, but I do like having the ability to post if I feel the need. Even so, I don't have an issue with removing lurkers.

 

[T Melton]

I certainly hope they will take into account the brevity of your account life as I have simply not had much time to post. I do agree with the fact that we are guests, and I think the clear definition of a "Lurker" Should be followed.

 

[John Erwin]

I see a fair number of people suggesting they feel "intimidated" by posting in some of the threads. I can understand that somewhat; the forecast and now threads can get pretty hairy and there's a fair amount of terminology to understand there.

But let's not forget there are other areas on the forum that anybody should be able to participate in. The Educational & new user weather discussion area is a great area to ask and learn.. the Weather and chasing area is also a great area to get involved in lighter topics. Let's not forget the Equipment threads and other areas too.

I really can't see any reason why anybody shouldn't be able to participate somehow... and for hardcore lurkers an account isn't required. Not sure what lurkers hope to gain from membership... prestige? Street Cred?

I doubt anybody that has so far posted in this thread would be removed anyways... Tim was fairly clear on what he considers to be a lurker.. zero or close to zero posts.. especially in relationship to the amount of time on here. Somebody who's had an account for over a year and hasn't posted yet is likely not going to need an account for instance.

 

[JoelHamburger]

Hello ST and fellow lurkers,

After a few attempts at beating the dead horse I feel that I have a few salient points pertaining to the discussion about Tim's plan. I meant to post earlier but I've been slammed with work for the past week.

First I'd like to thank Tim and the entire storm track community for providing a great space to share our passion for severe weather. I realize how much effort and time the moderators AND the active posters put into the forum which directly benefits me. Not only can I be learn something but I can be entertained by amazing pictures. Even threads like this are food for thought.

Second, I'd like to reiterate the sentiment that as the moderator Tim has the right to do what ever he pleases as regards the forum.

I do have a few thoughts on the matter though, all of these points take into account the assumption that guests have EXACTLY the same access as members (excluding B&G) but cannot post.

Some have expressed the sentiment that since lurkers do not post, they will not "miss" anything by loosing their account.

I believe that this is not true by any means. I put a concrete value on being able to contribute to this forum if and when I have the time. Being a member is a point of pride for me and an explicit acknowledgment of a part of my life which nobody in my social and work worlds share.

When I "lurk" I'm enjoying the freedom of absence. It's my choice to participate in whatever way I'd like and whatever way I can. Under the new policy I will either have to post or lose the choice to post. This will be an absence of freedom and I feel is anathema to the idea of community; particularly a net-based community.

I'd also like to ask, what do the moderators gain from deleting lurker accounts ? Obviously they are not freeing up any significant server space (lurkers don't post !), nor will the be keeping bandwidth down (guests can still read all forums except B&G).

I understand that Tim and active members of the forum want more active contribution from the community. I commend and applaud this goal.

I do not believe that mandatory participation is the most efficacious nor ethical way to encourage lurker participation.

By denying lurkers the choice whether to participate or not, you are sending a message that in a sense this is a closed community, a bit of a private club. Though ST does not have club dues, requiring posts is still a fee of sorts.

People will argue that one post a month is not unreasonable and they are 100% correct, one should be able to find the time to write one post a month. However, this is not always possible and removing someones account seems like a purely punitive action.

Personally, I rarely post because I run my own business which requires me to routinely put in 80 hour work weeks. If I have time to browse it's spent first on keeping up with current events and then work related websites and then here. 20 minutes reading through Storm Track represents a SIGNIFICANT chunk of my free time. I have also devoted a week a year to chasing which represents about half of my time away from work.

I became interested in chasing for two reasons. One: I spent a part of my childhood in Tuscon AZ and was obsessed with storms and then later tornadoes. Two: chasing storms was an activity so far removed from the hectic pace of my normal life it gave me a chance to reconnect to the myself and nature. I'm incredibly grateful for the times I've had out on the plains and the few brief (but pleasant) interactions I've had with fellow chasers.

As I said before, it's Tim's decision how to run the site. I can not or will not change my posting habits solely because I will be punished for not meeting the minimum requirements.

I believe that other lurkers feel the same way. I also think there has been such a strong response to the Tim's initiative is because there is an implicit message in the lurker removal:

I.E. if you don't choose to participate in the forum then you are not a real storm chaser and you are not wanted in the storm chasing community.

The degree to which this is true is impossible to determine but I feel this sentiment is out there.

As an outsider to to the community from the beginning (non-met, non traditional chasing background) this type of exclusion does not bother me in the least, I'll still be out there next year.

I do think that the message it sends will discourage people from having they experiences that we know and love out on the plains which I feel would be a tremendous loss.

Respectfully yours,

joel

 

[Jerry Prsha]

When I first read Tim's post, I was opposed to the idea. After thinking about it for a long while, I'm even more opposed. I'm lacking for a real reason to remove people (lurkers) who visit the site all the time but don't post. I can understand weeding out accounts that aren't used but getting rid of people who really do still log on here doesn't make sense to me.

Here's my point/s...

• If accounts of current people are deleted and they can still read the exact same posts, the same amount of bandwidth is used. There's no financial gain in that area.
  
• And if the post was made to generate more posts, posts will be made that aren't of real worth. People will be posting just to keep their count high enough to not get deleted and the quality of posts will suffer.
  
• If you're promoting the discussion and learning of weather, the proposed action does the complete opposite of what's intended, in my opinion.

 

[John Erwin]

I'm going to take a stab at replying to some of your comments; while I think you have some valid points, others are pretty weak IMO.

When I "lurk" I'm enjoying the freedom of absence. It's my choice to participate in whatever way I'd like and whatever way I can.

I disagree. This forum is privately owned; membership is a privilege, not a right. It's clear to me from the rules of the forum and from past discussions on the subject that the overall objective of Stormtrack is to provide "useful weather discussion". Lurkers (the textbook definition, not folks who are sometimes pretty quiet) do nothing to contribute to that goal. Still, lurkers are welcome in the form of "guests". I doubt they are missing much in B&G.

I'd also like to ask, what do the moderators gain from deleting lurker accounts ? Obviously they are not freeing up any significant server space (lurkers don't post !), nor will the be keeping bandwidth down (guests can still read all forums except B&G).

Having been a moderator myself (of a different forum) and a current system administrator, it makes good sense to have a handle on inactive accounts. There is a security liability when inactive accounts lay dormant for long periods of time; you really have no idea what the motives are of these folks and if they intend on using the accounts at all.. or if they may be used for other purposes. If for nothing else it makes good housekeeping sense to ensure only active accounts are in place. From Tim's wording of this action it seems clear to me he only intends on deleting accounts where it does indeed seem the account is entirely dormant.

I do not believe that mandatory participation is the most efficacious nor ethical way to encourage lurker participation. By denying lurkers the choice whether to participate or not, you are sending a message that in a sense this is a closed community, a bit of a private club. Though ST does not have club dues, requiring posts is still a fee of sorts.

I doubt there is very little you could do to get hardcore lurkers to post. They are that way due to their personality. Sure, many folks "lurk" from time to time (myself included) when they don't feel they can't contribute to a particular topic.. but I doubt those folks are what this all about. A closed community would not let you in the door in the first place. But there are standards of membership.. it seems clear that those will now include that you need to participate at least in a minimal manner here. I don't entirely buy the "too busy" comments either. If you have time to check in here regularly, you have time to get involved in some way. I work hard at my job too.. have a family, lots of projects on the go. .and yet I still have time to drop a comment or too in here. I can barely string together a coherent forecast for myself to read, nevermind others.. but I believe I have made some significant contributions in other areas of the forum.

However, this is not always possible and removing someones account seems like a purely punitive action.

I'm confident from Tim's original post and subsequent comments that anybody who has made even some remote attempt to contribute somehow will not be affected. If someone signed up over a year ago and has never posted is deleted... how is that punitive? Either the account was made in error, it wasn't needed, or some other unknown issue exists. The owner/moderators here are not mind-readers. Somebody who has posted at least a few times will clearly indicate they are a real person interested in weather and being a member of Stormtrack.

I.E. if you don't choose to participate in the forum then you are not a real storm chaser and you are not wanted in the storm chasing community.

Nobody from Stormtrack has said that.. and I doubt anyone who has been a Storm Chaser for any significant time would beleive it either. There's many many serious folks out there who are not members.. or have been members and chose to part ways for various reasons. The "Community" extends well beyond the Stormtrack envelope.. how you participate is up to you.

The degree to which this is true is impossible to determine but I feel this sentiment is out there.As an outsider to to the community from the beginning (non-met, non traditional chasing background) this type of exclusion does not bother me in the least, I'll still be out there next year.

From my experiences here and elsewhere there really is very little that can be done about that perception. There are always going to be folks that feel they "don't fit in". I think the admins/mods here have tried to do a great job to ensure that new folks have the opportunity to participate; but if they choose not to than nobody can force them. While having credentials is a requirement for some other online resources out there Stormtrack has never been one of them.. and most folks on here from my viewpoint do not come from a Met background (myself included). However most DO have a passion for the weather.

Is it really that unreasonable to expect that members add something to the fire? I really don't understand what the fuss is about.

 

[Shawn Camp]

Who will stay and who will go

Dear all

Like many of you I too am concerned about being deleted from this Forum as I view this site and forum like an extended Family that brings together all people from all different walks of life who enjoy weather,Storms, and meteorology as a whole. We are a weather family and I want to stay and continue to be a part of this family but that decision I know will not be up to me or alot of people. So if I have to go I just want to say that it has been my Honor and Privilege to have been given such a great opportunity to post more and be more a part of this Forum and these discussions and I am VERY VERY PROUD of all of the people who have worked soo hard to make this forum and site what it is today ALL of you are to be Congratulated on a job WELL DONE. I have gotten to know alot of people on here simply by reading and checking out pic's and other stuff that alot of people have posted over the years and I say to all of you If I have to go then I will miss you all but I will keep reading and checking ST often as it has become a great place to go for Severe Weather or Meteorology in general. However IF I am allowed to stay I PROMISE that I WILL do a BETTER job of posting more often and being more a part of this discussion and forum that soo many have worked so hard to create. We are a weather FAMILY and may that FAMILY continue to spread like wildfire and may those that are here and those that are to come may they all continue to contribute not only to the public at large but to this forum and web site. I am proud of all of you and I hope that I get to stay so that I can contribute more often or when time allows.


Family is everything and we are a family a family that I'm very very proud of.


I will continue to try to post more until the deadline and then we shall see which way the pendalim swings. I await my fate as the final decision I know is not in my hands.


Sincerely


Shawn C.

 

[Derek Weston]

From the principal standpoint -- "contribute something if you're a member" -- I could really care less. I have a web forum that's been around since 1999 and I have plenty of accounts that no longer post. They're little pieces of history as far as I'm concerned -- I'm just indifferent on it. It's a free thing anyway. I'm happy to see registrations. I suppose I might want to eliminate un-used accounts if I'm concerned that they're taking away possible usernames for subsequent users down the road... Though at a place like storm track, with real names, this isn't as much of an issue.

From a technological standpoint... I suppose you'd technically be saving server resources, decreasing database size. But the impact is really minimal, I'd think, unless you just had a giant giant community. (and in that case, proportionally, still probably not a significant impact)

I mean, a logged in lurker vs a unregistered lurker... if they're using PMs quite a bit maybe... I guess you're processing more code, calls against the database... you're creating sessions you otherwise wouldn't be with an unregistered lurker.

So if Tim really wanted to make this place as efficient as possible, I suppose I could see it. Of course, the PR issues, and the issues with certain users would probably make this more of a pain in the ass than it's worth to me. (though, admittedly, I can't quantify the technological benefits on this one for ST)

 

[JoelHamburger]

john,

I appreciate the reply, I'm pretty fried (just got off of work) but I'll take a shot at responding.

I'm going to take a stab at replying to some of your comments; while I think you have some valid points, others are pretty weak IMO.

I disagree. This forum is privately owned; membership is a privilege, not a right. It's clear to me from the rules of the forum and from past discussions on the subject that the overall objective of Stormtrack is to provide "useful weather discussion". Lurkers (the textbook definition, not folks who are sometimes pretty quiet) do nothing to contribute to that goal. Still, lurkers are welcome in the form of "guests". I doubt they are missing much in B&G.

I agree that membership in the forum is a privilege and not a right. I do take the objective of "useful weather discussion" fairly seriously and I'm reluctant to contribute until I can add something I would feel would be useful.

Though ST is a private forum I think it should be acknowledged that ST is large enough that what happens here is important to the entire storm chasing community. Look at how many guests were visiting during Katrina, Rita and Ike...

Having been a moderator myself (of a different forum) and a current system administrator, it makes good sense to have a handle on inactive accounts. There is a security liability when inactive accounts lay dormant for long periods of time; you really have no idea what the motives are of these folks and if they intend on using the accounts at all.. or if they may be used for other purposes. If for nothing else it makes good housekeeping sense to ensure only active accounts are in place. From Tim's wording of this action it seems clear to me he only intends on deleting accounts where it does indeed seem the account is entirely dormant.

My reading of tim's original post (as well of other members) was that Tim wanted to encourage lurkers to post. If his goal was solely to remove dormant and spam accounts (which makes a lot of sense) it would make more sense for him to simply ask that lurkers pm or email him if they wanted to keep their account.

I doubt there is very little you could do to get hardcore lurkers to post. They are that way due to their personality. Sure, many folks "lurk" from time to time (myself included) when they don't feel they can't contribute to a particular topic.. but I doubt those folks are what this all about. A closed community would not let you in the door in the first place. But there are standards of membership.. it seems clear that those will now include that you need to participate at least in a minimal manner here. I don't entirely buy the "too busy" comments either. If you have time to check in here regularly, you have time to get involved in some way. I work hard at my job too.. have a family, lots of projects on the go. .and yet I still have time to drop a comment or too in here. I can barely string together a coherent forecast for myself to read, nevermind others.. but I believe I have made some significant contributions in other areas of the forum.

A lot of my friends don't by my too busy argument as well Unfortunately for me, my job generally consists of 4-7 day blocks of 12 hour days WITH clients. I work at a computer but there's no way I can browse the net (the clients are literlaly looking over my shoulder). I may be a special case but I'm sure there are more out there who have very limited free time.

I'm confident from Tim's original post and subsequent comments that anybody who has made even some remote attempt to contribute somehow will not be affected. If someone signed up over a year ago and has never posted is deleted... how is that punitive? Either the account was made in error, it wasn't needed, or some other unknown issue exists. The owner/moderators here are not mind-readers. Somebody who has posted at least a few times will clearly indicate they are a real person interested in weather and being a member of Stormtrack.

I'd personally expect my account to be deleted as I think this is my 5th post in 2+ years. If the account holder is not a spammer or security risk while still intending to contribute, delelting the account seems punitive to me as I don't see a non-active account taking up any resources.

Nobody from Stormtrack has said that.. and I doubt anyone who has been a Storm Chaser for any significant time would beleive it either. There's many many serious folks out there who are not members.. or have been members and chose to part ways for various reasons. The "Community" extends well beyond the Stormtrack envelope.. how you participate is up to you.

No one from storm track has explicitly stated as such but I do believe it's a subtext in some posts. Let me stress that this is completely understandable and happens in any field which requires specialzed knowledge and experience... particularly a field where the barriers to participation are being broken down by the rapid spread of affordable technology.. Obviously the community extends beyond ST... I'm personally very curious to how large it is... is it twice as large as the current ST membership ? I'd wager that it would at most be 5x as large which would mean about 5,000 people actively interested in storm chasing.. It's not a huge community and what happens on this forum does affect them

From my experiences here and elsewhere there really is very little that can be done about that perception. There are always going to be folks that feel they "don't fit in". I think the admins/mods here have tried to do a great job to ensure that new folks have the opportunity to participate; but if they choose not to than nobody can force them. While having credentials is a requirement for some other online resources out there Stormtrack has never been one of them.. and most folks on here from my viewpoint do not come from a Met background (myself included). However most DO have a passion for the weather.

Is it really that unreasonable to expect that members add something to the fire? I really don't understand what the fuss is about.

I agree that the admins/mods have done a good job encouraging people to participate. I think the educational and the spotter forums are great additions. I'd be surprised if anyone browsing this site is NOT passionate about weather

In the end I think the fuss has a lot to do with the inherent nature of chasing. First, it requires one to develop a set of specialized skills. Second there is a competitive element. These two things naturally tend toward an elitist (I don't mean this prejoritavely) mind set.

I may be completely off base in my perceptions, but I suspect that other lurkers are aware of the natural tension between the veterans and the rookies.

Once again, let me stress that Tim has every right to run this board as he wishes.

I do feel that ST is the highest profile online resource for chasing and that the moderators do have some responsibilty to the greater storm chasing community as this board IS publicly viewable. ST is a great resource, it's where I learned that there were people who actively did what I wanted to for a long time !

In the end I do think it's reasonable for the ST moderators to expect active participation from the members in exhange for opening up the site. I do strongly object to the paternal nature of a mandatory requiremnent to post from a philosophical and a pragmatic perspective. Wouldn't it be better if the community could explicitly and implicitly stress what is expected to belong ?

I believe this one instance speaks directly some of the more heated discussions about a chaser code of conduct and self policing in the community which is why it has raised a larger fuss.

thanks for reading,

joel

 

[Chris Nuttall]

FROM TIM: This is official notice that on October 1 we will be pruning out dead accounts, lurkers, and all spam zombie accounts that have slipped through over the years. Accounts will be autodeleted for those who have an extremely low post count total (zero or very close to zero) and have been here at least 1-2 months.

People need to stop looking at this as personal attacks against them. There is a need for forum maintenance to improve security, and we are trying to make this a better place for all members by encouraging participation. No, there isn't a formal posting requirement to maintain membership, but it sure is nice to see some new and different people contribute to the forum.

If you're worried about how people will respond, start with small comments on small topics. You don't have to post a full, lengthy discussion about tornadogenesis.

 

[John Erwin]

I may be completely off base in my perceptions, but I suspect that other lurkers are aware of the natural tension between the veterans and the rookies.

Hi again Joel;

Having been a part of several different interest groups over the years I've seen this "natural human behaviour" many times. I hope you will indulge me listing my own theories on this:

- it's natural for folks to feel a bit "on the outside" when joining an established group of people, especially when that group is centered on a particular field of interest. Overcoming this feeling is a function of both personality traits of the individual, and the ability of the group to welcome new blood.

- groups such as Stormtrack are composed of many different personalities and experiences that cross the gamut of society. While there will always be those that look down their nose at the "newb" there will also always be those that are eager to share and guide them along. It's the "culture" of the environment that will determine which approach is dominant. Veterans here overall have displayed an ability to be patient, helpful and sharing when dealing with new folks.

- while I don't like to group people into "cubby-holes", there are some definite categories that many newcomers will fall into:
1 - patient, eager, reads a lot, gets involved in discussion.
2 - impatient, doesn't bother to research anything, "instant gratification" type
3 - silent.

- The first type of person will quickly end up a successful part of the group and likely learn the most. The second type will test the patience of everyone and is sometimes the source of controversy on the board. The last type is an unknown quantity.

Obviously in real life things are not so simple, however I think the patterns are generally clear enough to understand. A society needs it's members to interact, or it fails to be a society. As a means to ensure continued success I don't think it's unreasonable of the leadership here to expect it's members to contribute something as a requirement, although it's apparent this needs to be stated a little better up front and regularly via announcements.

Cheers!

 

[Jeff Miller]

although it's apparent this needs to be stated a little better up front and regularly via announcements.

I think this cuts to the chase of why this thread has evolved to 13 pages. Let me explain.

Prior to this thread, there was very little to any mention of any policies regarding lurkers on Stormtrack. I don't believe lurkers or issues with lurkers have ever been discussed on Stormtrack in a policy/procedural/administrative session. So for a sudden announcement by Tim - with very little explanation as to why - it should have been totally expected for those with low counts to be at the least alarmed - some feeling threatened, expectedly - and everyone having questions, which is why this thread is as large as it is.

This is Tim's forum. He has a right to run it as he feels. But in my opinion, the issue here is not the fact this is a private forum for Tim to run as Tim pleases. The issue here is this: I believe all anyone expects is that when a new policy or sitewide law is put into effect that may affect the accounts of members of Stormtrack to the point of deletion, that the courtesy of an explanation suitable enough to prevent this kind of confusion should be at least presented to the community. In this regard, I totally believe ST was in error. There's too much of a tendency to say "this is the way it is" and never say "why" or the "reason" for it, leading to 13 pages and over 120 posts of confusion. This entire thread of confusion could have been completely avoided if it had been handled differently by Administration from the get go - ESPECIALLY when it comes to a platform decision that will result in account terminations.

Perhaps the ST leadership can consider this, myself being fully aware this is a privately owned forum, that's all I can do is bring forth my viewpoints.