Lurkers will be removed October 1

[Bob Hartig]

There are twelve categories in the forum, covering everything from equipment, to storm reports and discussions, to a Q&A section for newbies, to forecast discussions, and so on. In those categories, dialog is ongoing and new threads are constantly emerging. It's not like there's no opportunity to participate, or any lack of topics of interest. As for geographical inhibitors, I, too, live in Michigan--not exactly the storm chaser's Mecca--but I don't mind opening my yap. If you're passionate about a thing, you want to talk about it, and you'll have things to say, even if it's questions to fill in the experience gaps that come from living in Michigan. I note that there are chasers on this forum who live overseas, but that doesn't stop them from contributing to the community.

I personally don't care who is or isn't a member of the forum, for the most part. But Tim is the guy who runs the show, he has his reasons, and he gets to make the call. Being cut from the roster for lack of contribution isn't tantamount to being cast into outer darkness. If you get booted for non-contribution and you decide at some point that you want to get more actively involved, I'd imagine there are second chances. Just count the cost of admission and make a quality decision, that's all.

 

[Shane Adams]

The point of an online community is to accept others openly.

Accepting others openly is what ST has been doing a lot of the past year or so...but that acceptance requires a little return from the other side.

The point of an online community is to interact online, through written posts. Otherwise, we'd all either be in the same room or we wouldn't be aware of each other period. What if all of us suddenly decided to just lurk? Where would the information you so eagerly seek be then? Kinda seems selfish IMO to expect those who turn out a high number of posts to keep providing the livelihood of this forum while you lurkers keep soaking it all up without so much as a random post in return.

I say we let all the lurkers stay and just stop posting.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

As it is September in Kansas I have nothing to post about so now I have to wonder about being cut from the forums? It's not that I don't have the desire to join duscussions...it's just a matter of not being able to commit the time to responding to all of the current posts. Plus I rearly have anything new to add to posts that hasn't already been said by others (except for the anti-law enforcement posts and you really don't want to get me started responding to those). The point of an online community is to accept others openly.

Patrick,

As others have noted, there are ALWAYS things to talk about on this forum. Even during the most inactive meteorological periods, there are always threads about equipment (cameras, video editing software, car rentals, etc), meteorology (big winter storm coming up, tropical cyclone activity), or a myriad of other topics ("your first tornado", a new research paper out, a "how does *this* or *that* work or affect tornadogenesis?", and so forth). Certainly, over the course of a month, there are at least a couple of topics that are likely to be of interest to any member (heck, it could be the same topic, with several posts in that same topic). This doesn't mean that there will be a huge increase in frivolous, 1-liner posts, since this isn't about requiring 100 posts per month for every member.

If you (not necessarily "you" as in Patrick, but the general "you") want to be a member, please contribute! Help make Stormtrack better by supplying content that you find interesting! In other words, the quality content that we all desire (presumably, all here are members because they are interest in the content) comes from members just like you and me, members who value this forum and realize that it only exists because of user-generated content.

 

[Patrick Romans]

The way I read it...it requires more than just "a little return". Why should I be required to join dicussions on hurricanes that won't affect me and I won't get the oppurtunity to see, software or equipment that I don't use and know nothing about , or post replies to posts that I don't really have an opinion on nor the knowledge to form an opinion? When a post comes up that I want to make a statement about or add discussion to I will, I am far from being short on opinions. I've been active on several discussions in chats and corresponded with several users here, I just haven't posted much in the ST forums for whatever reasons so does that make me a lurker?

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

Some might find this link useful...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker

 

[Sarah Glenn]

Maybe those who are going to lose their accounts should be notified and given a chance to argue their case first?

I have to say I like this idea, as long as a member may, say, fit certain criteria...? I am a meteorology student, but, as I am sure many of you know, have my head way too full of math and physics at this point, and feel rather insecure about posting in-depth forecasts and the like ATTM. I admit I should use the educational forum more, but occasionally I feel too insecure to even do that. I, for one, would be disappointed to lose my account after only 3 months. I also don't want to clog up the forum with obvious or ignorant questions just to be posting. I'm not going to continue to plead my case here, but I do agree that "lurkers" shouldn't necessarily be members. I do also see the merit in a smaller forum = less maintenance and perhaps better discussions. I hope there is a happy medium that can be found in regards to this issue.

 

[Bob Hartig]

This topic got me to wondering how many posts I've actually made. So I looked it up; I average around 100 a year. But in checking out my personal tally, I've noted that some highly esteemed names on this forum may not fit the membership criteria. They drop in occasionally, and when they speak, people listen. I assume--I hope--that these veteran chasers will always remain on the active list, regardless of how frequently or infrequently they contribute.

 

[Chris Nuttall]

Let's get something straight. We're not just looking at post count. It's post count relative to the length of membership here. Think of it this way: imagine someone that joined in Dec. 2003 (date of current revision of ST), that has posted less than 20 times, still logs in frequently to read the board, but hasn't posted in over a year. Why do they need the ability to post?

We're not asking for people to commit every waking hour they spend here posting. But ask yourself, what is the purpose of having an account to post if you don't WANT to post? Having an account is supposed to be a benefit...both to you and to others. Sure, if you never post, you are still benefiting, but nobody else is. The purpose of an internet forum is to interact with people. If you don't want to interact, why bother with having posting rights?

If you joined and find nothing here that you are interested in discussing, then why be a member? If you still want to be a member, and you have an interest in something that isn't being discussed, then start a thread and let's talk about it. If that interest doesn't fit with any of things that ST is about, then why do you need posting privileges?

It's already been pointed out a couple of times, the only section of ST that is off-limits to the public is the B&G. If you only joined ST for B&G access, you should probably reconsider your reasons for being here. ST's primary purpose is to facilitate discussion about meteorology and storm chasing. That does not take place in the B&G.

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

This topic got me to wondering how many posts I've actually made. So I looked it up; I average around 100 a year. But in checking out my personal tally, I've noted that some highly esteemed names on this forum may not fit the membership criteria. They drop in occasionally, and when they speak, people listen. I assume--I hope--that these veteran chasers will always remain on the active list, regardless of how frequently or infrequently they contribute.

BINGO. Someone finally said it. I agree 100%.

 

[Richard Dickson]

Since I am the one who got this going, I would offer one more attempt with the basic question.

Seriously, think about almost any social gathering where people are not required to attend but are there because they chose to be. It could be having a beer with the boys after work, doing a neighborhood barbeque, a church social or even a full blown storm chasers convention. Does every person contribute to the conversation equally? No! Some folks are more concerned with listening to the wisdom or thoughts of others and only when they feel they have a valid and worthwhile thought will they dare to speak up. I certainly agree that conversations are easier when everyone participates.

I carefully choose my words for my post in reply to Tim’s Sticky and did not mean for it to be inflammatory or flippant in the least. I was soon informed that I had an “attitude” and that “the forum would be a better place if I wasn’t here”. Posts with wording along those lines may be a part of why some of us are a little reluctant to express ourselves a great deal. I am certain those folks didn’t really mean that, but it is still intimidating. It is common knowledge that the internet is a horrible place to communicate with people. There is no way of knowing how the written word will be interpreted whereas the facial expressions and the voice do a better job of conveying the intent of a message in person.

If I am removed for a lack on numerical postings, then I guess that is simply part of life. My original premise hasn’t changed. I am not convinced that meeting some numerical criteria of posts qualifies a person as a good member and also furthers the goals of the organization.

Like I said in my original post, “It was a pleasure being here while it lasted”.
Richard L Dicson

 

[Robert Dewey]

But why have an account if you're not going to post? That's the question I asked in my other post. It seems nobody has the answer.

I'm sure there's some tax on the server resources when users login. Why waste those resources and have the entire control panel running when you're not going to post? I just don't get it...

 

[John Wetter]

A community isn't a community without participation.

I have no problem with deleting people who haven't posted and also aren't either NWS or veteran chasers that do at least share some by posting or otherwise participating in the 'community' at large. I just looked and we have about 4 pages of people that haven't even logged in during 2008.

 

[MatthewCarman]

I thought the forecast area was not viewable to guests? If that is true then wont these people lose access to that area? Mabey that is why some people have a account. Also what about the well known chasers who hardly ever post? Sean Casey, Tim Simaras and the second Twister Sisters come to mind. Will they be removed for a low amount of posts? I doubt some well known people on here post atleast twice a month.

I agree with deleteing anyone with 0 posts or anyone who has not checked the site in say 6 months should have their accounts removed but people who check the site alot should be allowed to stay. If the account is active let the person stay. Some people here may contribute alot more but not everyone has something to post or say. The people who contribute less are just quite and probibly feel quantity is not as inportant as quality. I have to agree. If some people choose to post less I see no problem with that.

That is my oppiniun and I thought I would add to the discusion.

 

[Todd Krause]

A cursory look at the membership pages suggests to me that there are very few lurker members. So I'm not sure that this is to improve performance of the web site itself.

Obviously I've posted very little, as I strongly dislike posting for the sake of posting, or if there is a discussion going on that others have already represented my point of view. I have used PM somewhat.

So what is the value of a lurking member? To me, it is the ability to add a post quickly to a topic that we can provide a worthwhile contribution. And lurkers do make a contribution every so often - just not as often as some are happy with. If my membership is revoked, and I read something as a non-member that I can help with, it will take a day or more to get my membership re-approved (assuming it would even be re-approved). In my case, I signed up to provide input with regard to matters such as damage surveys and other post-storm comments in the MN-WI area. Other WCMs on this board have been able to chime in every so often with worthwhile responses. Unfortunately, we've had mostly boring weather in our area these two summers that I've been a member, and there have been very few opportunities to make a timely contribution.

I just read some of the posts from other people with low post counts, and they appear to have been useful and of good quality.

Also, I would recommend that this change to forum membership be listed in the forum rules. It's not there now, at least not in any obvious form that I can find (but maybe I'm just not comprehending the rules properly )

Todd
MPX WCM

 

[John Farley]

I think that, like a lot of things, the real impact of this action depends on how it is implemented. If you only remove people who haven't posted anything in over a year, I don't think anyone will be much bothered. I know I won't. But on the other hand you start checking once a month and delete everyone that fails to post in a month, I would be very unhappy and I suspect so would a lot of others. There is an ebb and flow both to the amount of storm chasing activity and to the lives of individuals (and the latter may or may not be correlated with the former), and I think ST needs to allow for that. Hence, I think we should allow for folks sometimes going a month with no posts. But if, as I hope, you're just deleting the REALLY inactive folks that have gone more than a year with no posts, then no problem.