Map Room Troubles...

[rdale]

Check the 8/19 FCST: Ohio Valley thread please... Two posts talking about the SPC outlook, and one saying storms are forecast.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

I was deleting the noncompliant posts at the same time as this posting. This is a good reminder to all, however, that you MUST include more than just an SPC or NWS forecast if you're making a FCST post.

(3) Prohibited content. Users may NOT post weather bulletins and forecast images except as brief excerpts and with original supporting information. Frivolous content is prohibited.

--> http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7749
[/quote]

 

[Scott Olson]

Rob, I noticed that as well. Lots of 'SPC just upgraded to a moderate Risk' worst even that it is in a FCST thread. Obviously some people aren't reading the target area rules before posting.

 

[Bill Tabor]

Rob pointing out this example also shows how self policing can help keep the forum more orderly and within rule specifications. The moderators can't be everywhere, but with a few people helping them to point out potential problems perhaps they can. We don't have a 'flame' or 'noise' button but we do have lots of members that can can click a moderator PM button and pass a URL of where there is a problem.

I recommend that we encourage the membership to pass on non-compliant posts (particularly in Map Room) to the staff as part of a solution to contributing to the quality of StormTrack.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

I recommend that we encourage the membership to pass on non-compliant posts (particularly in Map Room) to the staff as part of a solution to contributing to the quality of StormTrack.

I agree, but it may be more effecient and less cluttersome to do so via PM instead of by opening a new thread.

 

[Rob_Davis]

I agree, but it may be more effecient and less cluttersome to do so via PM instead of by opening a new thread.

Which reminds me of an idea I had. It is sort of difficult to contact mods here. You have to search around for one and pm them, and then hope that particular mod signs on in the near future.

Is there a way to install a button that sends a message to all moderators so that the first one to sign on will receive it? We have that option on some mailing lists I am on or moderate, and it really streamlines the process. Also prevents people from posting their complaints publicly.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Is there a way to install a button that sends a message to all moderators so that the first one to sign on will receive it? We have that option on some mailing lists I am on or moderate, and it really streamlines the process. Also prevents people from posting their complaints publicly.

We had this last year, but it was removed with a software upgrade.

 

[Geoff Boyle]

it may be more effecient and less cluttersome to do so via PM instead of by opening a new thread.

I agree, reporting every infraction on the public forum will make Stormtrack look bad. If we want to improve the quality of the content on this forum, it should start here.

 

[Glen Romine]

Any chance there could be a limit on just how far out a forecast post can be made? I'd be all for making a 5 day out maximum on forecast threads - and a requirement for tropical systems that NHC forecast has landfall within 5 days before a thread can be opened.

Thanks,
Glen

 

[mikegeukes]

Glen Romine:

Any chance there could be a limit on just how far out a forecast post can be made? I'd be all for making a 5 day out maximum on forecast threads

I agree with Glen, having the forecast post limited to 5 days out.
The farther out the forecast post is, the more wishcasting there is.

We should have a poll for this: Limit for How Far Forecast Posts Should Be
1 day, 2 day, 3 day, 5 day, 7 day, 10 day, etc,

Mike
Back to Campground Again.

 

[Rob_Davis]

Any chance there could be a limit on just how far out a forecast post can be made? I'd be all for making a 5 day out maximum on forecast threads - and a requirement for tropical systems that NHC forecast has landfall within 5 days before a thread can be opened.

I think that's a good idea, Glen. In their competetive zeal to be the first to start a topic, some people get way too ahead of the event. I think starting a forecast for a tropical storm in the Gulf when you live in the Midwest or Great Lakes and have zero intention of chasing the event even if it DOES make landfall seven days from now is the very definition of wishcasting. It's noise. It's weather weenieism. It's what I thought the new chaser-centric atmosphere was attempting to eliminate.

 

[mikegeukes]

Nick

Long Range Forecating:
You should also, look at the Ensembles, the Mean and the Spaghetti Plots , I notice a lot times after 126 hours, you will notice more and more uncertainty, the farther you go out in the forecast period.

Wishcasting, is when someone sees certain features from the models and they are hoping all the ingredients come together for a significant weather events, like a blizzard, tornado outbreak, etc.

Example, would be saying there is going to be a big severe weather event, 10 days from now based on the GFS, heck its hard enough to predict severe weather for 1-2 days out and days 3-5 for looking at the synoptic scale.

The farther out in the forecast period, the less accurate the forecasts, and it doesn't make sense to try to predict severe weather, beyond 5 days.
I still agree with Glen, with a 5 day limit.

Mike

 

[Robert Dewey]

A five day limit sounds fine to me. As far as what Rob Davis said about starting a FCST thread for something you don't intend to chase being "noise", I disagree.

There is currently a good discussion of a possible hurricane 16 days out... But, while it is a good and detailed discussion, it's just too far out to be of any value (16 days or something).

 

[Glen Romine]

It doesn't matter if a FCST post is for an event thats several hours, or several days - if it's a quality post, then it is plenty fine with me. Naturally, there is more uncertainty the longer away the particular event is, but it's still forecasting...

I think this is a misconception of what forecasting is versus model output interpretation. If you are looking at the day 9 GFS and see a synoptically evident severe weather pattern in central Texas - you are interpretting model output. Forecasting would include understanding the robustness of that forecast product - and recognizing the plausibility of that event actually happening - which is roughly climatology, since the GFS exhibits very little skill at day 9, particularly with synoptic scale features. So, a quality forecaster would be unlikely to to take such a model run output too seriously - barring considerable agreement among all global forecast models, run to run consistency among all trusted models, extremely limited ensemble spread, etc..., that could somehow offer up some confidence in the model solution being plausible. I kind of wish the global model graphics had a 'for entertainment only' label on them beyond 7 days. Of course, on the global scale - the global models can still have some useful information in them - but you have to ignore the synoptic patterns as noise that far out.

Glen

 

[Mickey Ptak]

I agree with the 5 day limit on the FCST threads. Much to my embarrassment, in the past I have posted a few forecast threads 6 to 7 days out and nothing really came of those proposed dates. It really is speculation that far out, regardless of how good of a forecaster you are or think you are and there is a good chance that a thread about a possible chase day =>7 days out will just take up space on the server and have no real value.

So I am cool with a time limit on the FCST threads.

Mick

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Nick,

Per the current rules:

(7) Chase topics spanning multiple or ambiguous dates are prohibited, such as "FCST: This Weekend". Map Room is chronologically organized and is dependent on exact dates. Pick the most representative calendar date and post your message there. Commit to a date, and if it changes you can always move to another thread or start a new one.

In the past, if you remember, there were threads in the old Weather and Chasing forum with titles such as "Pattern change coming" or similar. These essentially served the same function as you suggest -- a thread for "long-term" convective forecasting and discussion of synoptic-scale evolution as seen in the models or other sources. Personally, I don't see a reason why this wouldn't be okay now. As Glen noted, most of the "long-term" forecasts are just model interpretations anyway, unless you know a lot about teleconnections, global circulation processes, etc, and can anticipate synoptic-scale feature placement that differs from the global models.

 

[Glen Romine]

4/22/06 - 4/27/06: LONG-RANGE: CENTRAL STATES (started on 4/18/06)...

As I'm sure you know Nick, since you undoubtedly are familiar with the map room rules, you cannot have a non-date specific event in the map room. I did, however, note on several occasions last spring that a few threads fired up in W&C for long range forecast potential (7-10 days out) - such as the development of a longwave trough in the western US - which is often a favorable pattern for synoptic scale events to develop that might lead to severe weather events. Such discussions then don't become date specific until a reliable synoptic pattern starts to emerge out - most often in the 3-5 day lead time frame at best. Since the thread titles require 1) a specific date, 2) a specific region, then imo threads shouldn't be allowed beyond the predictability range for events on that spatial and temporal scale. A few folks seem to agree with me apparently - so it's more a matter if Tim feels this is agreeable/beneficial for the board as a whole and if moderators have sufficient interest to enforce it.

Glen

 

[Rob_Davis]

I realize that it's not permitted in the Maproom, and I didn't know if it was still permitted in Weather Lab... So, that is why I asked if we should have a place for it...

Ah, well I can go with that. There certainly should be a place for such discussion. I just don't think the Map Room should be that place.