PLEASE READ Vote on a new policy concerning severe weather threads

[Lake Martin EF4]

Sorry for the confusion let me clear it up a bit.

A vote for would implement the rule that all severe events would have their own dedicated thread. The Severe Weather 20## (i.e. 2023) would be the place to discuss events that are more than a week out.

An against vote means that you would prefer a master thread for longer duration of time that could include multiple events.

I do agree that I like listing out the locations as well. We can include that either way.

Oh.

In that case, against.

EDIT: Checked the results. Yeah no looks like "for" is going to win. Goodbye long term threads.

Any event that is 8+ days away (outside of the SPC outlooks) can remain in the severe weather 20XX thread. EVEN IF THE MODELS ARE SCREAMING OUTBREAK!

Although IMO if the models are basically shouting and waving the red flag like 10 days out that there's gonna be an event I think a thread is justified then.

 

[KevinH]

Actually that "SVR a week out+" thread is a really good idea. I support (but do I get to make the "Long Range SVR" thread?)

That’s what the severe weather 2023 thread is for. If the models are still screaming within D1-8 range then we create a thread. We want to avoid having an excessive and unnecessary number of threads that may not even amount to any event, but end up confusing people, so it’s important to have SOME parameters in place.

 

[KevinH]

Although IMO if the models are basically shouting and waving the red flag like 10 days out that there's gonna be an event I think a thread is justified then.

There have been plenty of times where they scream outbreak at 9+ days and change their mind at some point when they get within D1-8 range. There are TOOOOOOO many variables at 9+ days that can cause things to change. We have seen that several times.

Also, @WesL said no threads are to be created for events that are 8+ days out. So there is THAT lol

 

[KevinH]

I vote for specific dates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then vote “For”

 

[KevinH]

No long-term threads, please. It’s confusing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Then vote “For”

 

[KevinH]

No long term/long duration generalized threads (i.e. April Severe Threat). I like the specific dated threads per event. This makes it clear for current as well as historical purposes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then vote “For”

 

[Kim30]

How about instead of having 2 long threads for Severe (insert year) and Winter (insert year), we break them down into months that would include both severe and winter? For example some like "April 2023 weather discussion". And we could still have threads for specific events? I hope that made sense.

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

How about instead of having 2 long threads for Severe (insert year) and Winter (insert year), we break them down into months that would include both severe and winter? For example some like "April 2023 weather discussion". And we could still have threads for specific events? I hope that made sense.

Actually good idea but it probably won't win out.

 

[Sawmaster]

How about instead of having 2 long threads for Severe (insert year) and Winter (insert year), we break them down into months that would include both severe and winter? For example some like "April 2023 weather discussion". And we could still have threads for specific events? I hope that made sense.

The problem with that and seasonal groupings is when an event transpires a set time period into the next category.

Better to just use a set number days into the future which can be found for reference later on by checking the dates of posts in that thread.

 

[Kim30]

What I mean is keep the specific event threads, but break up the Severe & Winter threads into months instead of a whole year.

 

[Jpgood97]

For.

Keep specific dates and locations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Equus]

I certainly like the idea of one thread per specific setup, as in the April 14-16 2011 and April 25-28 2011 outbreak sequences being one setup each, which seems to be the general consensus. Broad duration threads for a big chunk of the month for different events does make searching a bit confusing and if one day that overperforms a lot is lumped into it, that makes finding said discussions tedious and difficult to find later on the forum. Specific dates listed in the topic helps a lot with that.

Maybe for big outbreak sequences that are semi connected and last a week or so it would be okay but even then it's not perfect; the May 2019 sequence thread worked alright since it was basically one extended series of events in a stagnant pattern but even then finding discussion on a specific day of that sequence (Jefferson City, Dayton, or the apocalyptic 5/20 that wasn't, for example) definitely requires a good bit of searching.

 

[Bama Ravens]

I am for having specific threads for each event (can cover multiple days, though, such as one thread for April 25-28, 2011) as we have always done. It makes it so much easier to find the thread and know that you’re posting in the right thread. The only long term thread should be the annual general severe weather discussion thread.

 

[KevinH]

How about instead of having 2 long threads for Severe (insert year) and Winter (insert year), we break them down into months that would include both severe and winter? For example some like "April 2023 weather discussion". And we could still have threads for specific events? I hope that made sense.

Not a bad idea, but there is an issue of the same event possibly occurring across two months (i.e. Feb 28-Mar 2, April 30-May 3). What month would those events go in? How would people know what month to look in when searching for an event?

 

[KevinH]

I certainly like the idea of one thread per specific setup, as in the April 14-16 2011 and April 25-28 2011 outbreak sequences being one setup each, which seems to be the general consensus. Broad duration threads for a big chunk of the month for different events does make searching a bit confusing and if one day that overperforms a lot is lumped into it, that makes finding said discussions tedious and difficult to find later on the forum. Specific dates listed in the topic helps a lot with that.

Maybe for big outbreak sequences that are semi connected and last a week or so it would be okay but even then it's not perfect; the May 2019 sequence thread worked alright since it was basically one extended series of events in a stagnant pattern but even then finding discussion on a specific day of that sequence (Jefferson City, Dayton, or the apocalyptic 5/20 that wasn't, for example) definitely requires a good bit of searching.

Agree. Outbreak sequences should still get their own thread. Sequences can end up with PAGES of comments, but fortunately they are rare (for now???? ), so this should not be an issue TOO often?

May 2019 was ri-diculous.

 

[pscampbe]

Mostly a lurker, but FOR. We need specific threads for specific events. And in the past, we have had monthly threads to discuss how certain months are shaping up, and I don't have a problem with those staying. Also, I don't think there needs to be a date restriction for starting a severe event thread, especially when models are screaming outbreak. Let's remember that the 2011 superoutbreak thread was created about a week before April 27.

 

[thundersnow]

Yes- seasonal or monthly threads for long range kinds of discussions… and then split off to event-specific threads once enough confidence is there… I’m thinking when it’s within no more than 3-5 days out IMO.

 

[WesL]

Good day everyone,

I want to express my gratitude to all those who participated in the recent vote to decide how we will create severe weather event threads on TalkWeather. Your feedback and votes were valuable and have helped us to make a decision that will enhance the forum's functionality.

I am pleased to announce that the new rule resulting from the vote is now active, effective today. At TalkWeather, we strive to provide a member-oriented platform that promotes fruitful discussion among those passionate about severe weather. We value the input of all our members and encourage you to continue sharing your ideas and suggestions on how we can improve the forum experience.

Once again, thank you for your active participation in this decision-making process. We look forward to continuing to serve you with the best forum experience possible.

Thanks,
Wes