Proposal to eliminate virtual chasing from Target Area

[Jeff Miller]

I would like to submit a proposal to eliminate virtual chasing from Target Area.

Virtual chasing is not a real, legitimate chase - it really is not a chase at all. It is more on the lines of "fantasy chasing" and does not add any significance to the threads in Target. It is noise that has to be sifted through to find out what is really going on. Because the virtual chaser is not really in the field, the data is useless.

Thank you.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

Where is this happening?

Tim

 

[B Ozanne]

Yeah, what are you talking about? I haven't seen this, but maybe I don't know what I am looking for.

 

[Jeff Miller]

Check Forecast Threads for these instances...thhough I really appreciate the analysis, I just don't understand these "virtual" posts. Virtual this and virtual that makes no sense...in my opinion.

"Well, here we go again. The atmosphere is in a groove, don't fight the tape, etc. I'm virtually back at my room in DDC. Already some convection going up just south of me, which confirms the morning sounding of almost no CINH. Storm motion will be pretty crazy today -- northeast at over 40kts. Follow something too early and you could be in Topeka by lunch and Minneapolis by dinner (well, almost).

With all that I like the slightly more capped picture and better dryline dynamics potential a little bit further south. I'm heading virtually southeast to Ashland, KS, to stay in Verizon data territory, kick around at the sights there, and hopefully catch the train in the late afternoon."

I've seen this happen before - maybe I just don't understand this totally. If clarification is in order, great - but again, whats the point?

 

[Tim Vasquez]

Good point... I'll discuss this with the moderators.

I'm also removing the poster's name from your message to prevent this from escalating beyond the basic issue at hand.

Tim

 

[MClarkson]

I agree with jeff.

I can see the posts where you say "id target the area around XXX because that southern cell is about to whatever"...


but the 'virtually im headed...' posts really are pretty useless in a now thread.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

but the 'virtually im headed...' posts really are pretty useless in a now thread.

I agree...

 

[John Diel]

I whole heartedly agree with this proposal. I also feel there is WAY too much noise in the "Now" threads. Too many people posting one liners (Expressly Verboten) and many post with minimal significance to what is happening.

The rules are plain to see and pretty well written and also, almost blatently disregarded.

 

[Robert Dewey]

Has anyone checked further into this before getting delete happy (as is typical)? I've used the term "virtually" plenty of times in which I didn't actually mean "virtual". For example... If I'm "virtually at my door step", I mean that I'm really close to it, but not actually on it. In this case, maybe the chaser was "virtually" at their hotel, meaning a few miles away? No? Then again... the overuse of "virtual" makes it a little questionable, LOL

Just something to ponder before we have a happy delete-fest.

 

[David Wolfson]

I think there are two issues here. The first is whether informed comments from those not in the field, or nowcasting for particular teams in the field, should be allowed in the Forecast & Nowcast area. The second is whether or to what degree chaser location and movement information should be allowed.

Since a particular post has been put forward as an example, I must defend it, though this post should not be judged as any more perfect and to the point than many I read all the time in the F & N area. Leaving aside the location and movement chatter for a moment, the meteorological content of this post was absolutely current and I think rather inciteful. I believe it holds its own among most of the other posts from so-called "nowcasters".

As far as "virtual chasing" or "nowcasting" is concerned, I think these are the substantive, as opposed to stylistic points:

Posts should clearly identify whether they are being made by someone in the field or in an office. This is I believe a legitimate safety issue, lest field chasers misconstrue a virtual observation as ground-truth. There are all too many posts like, "Good cell going up near X", without further clarification.

Members not in the field should minimize their posting to F & N once field teams are onto and pursuing storms.

Chasing and the forecasting/nowcasting that facilitates it are a combination of a thought process applied to data, subject to the realities of time and distance management.

A number of members, including me, enjoy the "chase cases" that have been put up now and then, and have expressed the desire to have more. I personally suggested awhile back that real-time supplies the best chase case scenarios without needing the hands-on formatting and management that go along with archived chase cases. I put out the idea of adding a CASE: mm/dd/yy thread with separate, perhaps somewhat looser rules, for all posts that do not represent contributions from field chasers and bona fide nowcasters for teams currently in the field. This should take care of the virtual chase controversy, damp the noise in the F & N area, and provide a worthwhile source of continuing education and information.

That said, if there is too much "non-informative" content as the mods define it, it should be dealt with, and I would support that wholeheartedly.

 

[Brian Emfinger]

I think as of right now the virutal posting is ok. IF a lot more people start doing it I would probably be annoyed but as of right now its not a problem.

 

[Glenn Dixon]

Leaving aside the location and movement chatter for a moment, the meteorological content of this post was absolutely current and I think rather inciteful. I believe it holds its own among most of the other posts from so-called "nowcasters".

I think if you 'left aside' the location and movement chatter, and just stuck to meteorological content, that would solve the problem completely. Perhaps if you want to document your virtual chases for the purpose of doing dry-run chasing you could just pick a different forum? Or maybe Tim could set one up. Just a thought.

 

[Robert Dewey]

Why can't people just say "I'd head to location X"...

 

[Robbie Cox]

I think as of right now the virutal posting is ok. IF a lot more people start doing it I would probably be annoyed but as of right now its not a problem.

I wholeheartly agree. For some it's a passion, some a job, and others for the education. Without virutal post how will one learn from the best ?

My point is if someone get's just a little infomation from a virutal post then it has educated someone giving them the chance to make a better post in the future. I'm sure alot of kids read these post having the dream to chase or to go to school to learn. Why not let them keep that dream ?

I would perfer a plain english post,but then I would never learn. As for the other's that disagree they know what they are looking for and should be able to scroll past the post without even blinking.

 

[David Wolfson]

As a lurker on some of the NOW threads lately, I've been troubled by multiple posts and general noise from virtual chasers asserting conditions that seem to conflict with EMS and field chasers -- the Greensburg disaster on 5/4 in particular.

IMHO, if there is an ongoing event with people posting from direct observation, unless you're virtual but very well-connected in your job, e.g. NWS, EMC, or SPC, shaddup!