PLEASE READ Vote on a new policy concerning severe weather threads

[WesL]

Good day everyone.

In the past few weeks, we tested a new concept of allowing long-term threads for multiple events (i.e. last half of April). Several of you have spoken out against this with some very valid reasons around being able to go back and find information from an event quickly. With this in mind, I ask you to vote and provide feedback on the proposed policy below for Severe Weather Threads. We will leave voting open for 5 days from the time of this post.


5. Creating Severe Weather Event Threads
We realize that there are times during the year there are several days of severe weather events. After discussing with a few long-term members, we believe that the best policy is not to make long-duration threads for severe weather events. (i.e. Last Half of April). One of the things that this site has prided itself on is the ability to go back and find past events easily. We feel using specific dates continues to make that easier. Any discussions of possible severe weather events should be kept in the Severe Weather thread for the current year. (i.e. Severe Weather 2023). No specific thread for the event should be created until the event is seven days or less away.

 

[Sawmaster]

Agree for the reasons stated. It's hard to keep sorted out when you cover too much and all the parameters changing significantly.

It would be good to have something for "long-range" prognostication, maybe a single rolling thread covering "Severe WX more than a week out" or sopmething like that. This would allow better study of long-term forecasting and patterns.

 

[Wind Driven Coconut]

I mainly just lurk here but I admit I had trouble figuring out which thread was tracking which risk the last few days. Prefer the old approach, but those that post regularly should have a vote that weighs more here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TH2002]

Unrelated - but I did take note that all text on the site seems to be bolded now (the Bold function is doing nothing) is this an update that was on TalkWeather's part or XenForo's part? All text being bolded is a bit hard on the eyes but at least the update didn't break the ability to post

 

[WesL]

Unrelated - but I did take note that all text on the site seems to be bolded now (the Bold function is doing nothing) is this an update that was on TalkWeather's part or XenForo's part? All text being bolded is a bit hard on the eyes but at least the update didn't break the ability to post

That was on me. Fixed it. That’s for noticing.

 

[J-Rab]

Specific dates, for sure. It’s nice if they have the area effected as well.

 

[KevinH]

Maybe this is because it is 4:30am (early day AND waiting for the D4-8 ha) but I am not clear on what the exact proposed policy is?

Is it to allow long duration threads or keep using specific dates? Once I know that I will vote lol

Specific dates for the reason you stated. I also started to include the states that are at risk within the thread title so people scrolling through the list can easily see who is going to be affected without having to read pages of comments lol, but I would not say adding the states is mandatory, but still cool.

Also, I started (Mon Feb 27) because the risk area between the day before and Monday were so far apart they seemed like SEPARATE events. Another user (@Taylor Campbell ) asked me to close the thread (which I can’t do lol) bc it was the same storm system. All this time I have been on this thread and never knew that. I like his answer better and it makes more sense.

 

[Gail]

Single events are definitely better. Threads get muddy when it’s several put together.

 

[Gail]

Maybe this is because it is 4:30am (early day AND waiting for the D4-8 ha) but I am not clear on what the exact proposed policy is?

Is it to allow long duration threads or keep using specific dates? Once I know that I will vote lol

Specific dates for the reason ms you stated. I also started to include the states that are at risk within the thread title so people scrolling through the list can easily see who is going to be affected without having to read pages of comments lol, but I would not say adding the states is mandatory, but still cool.

Also, I started (Mon Feb 27) because the risk area between the day before and Monday were so far apart they seemed like SEPARATE events. Another user (@Taylor Campbell ) asked me to close the thread (which I can’t do lol) bc it was the same storm system. All this time I have been on this thread and never knew that. I like his answer better and it makes more sense.

I appreciate the locations for sure. That’s helpful!

 

[MichelleH]

Maybe this is because it is 4:30am (early day AND waiting for the D4-8 ha) but I am not clear on what the exact proposed policy is?

Is it to allow long duration threads or keep using specific dates? Once I know that I will vote lol

Specific dates for the reason ms you stated. I also started to include the states that are at risk within the thread title so people scrolling through the list can easily see who is going to be affected without having to read pages of comments lol, but I would not say adding the states is mandatory, but still cool.

Also, I started (Mon Feb 27) because the risk area between the day before and Monday were so far apart they seemed like SEPARATE events. Another user (@Taylor Campbell ) asked me to close the thread (which I can’t do lol) bc it was the same storm system. All this time I have been on this thread and never knew that. I like his answer better and it makes more sense.

The proposed policy is to NOT allow severe threads that are long duration, i.e. second half of April. OG here, let's please keep it the way we have always done it. One thread per event. If anyone is still wondering why most of us want it this way, let's say someone in 2011 had created a severe thread for April 15th and the second half of April, all in one thread? See the problem?

 

[Lake Martin EF4]

Agree for the reasons stated. It's hard to keep sorted out when you cover too much and all the parameters changing significantly.

It would be good to have something for "long-range" prognostication, maybe a single rolling thread covering "Severe WX more than a week out" or sopmething like that. This would allow better study of long-term forecasting and patterns.

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?)

 

[Sawmaster]

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?)

I'd think so as both concepts are similar. The only big issue I can see here is what if someone started a long-range April 2011 thread on the first, and then the 27th came along? Would the event itself need to post in the earlier long-range thread or would it deserve or require a separate thread?

Perhaps there could be a specific forum or subforum for long range, and the few-days-out + event thread in a separate place. Of course there would be some cross-referencing back to long-range predictions in a current thread so I don't know. hat there cis an ideal solution.

All I'm sure of is that fairly concise organization is needed to make after-event research user-friendly and we're not getting that with how things have happened in recent days. And we shouldn't do anything which inhibits discussion and thoughts of anything in the realm of weather topics this site is intended for.

 

[jules]

Been hanging around this forum for … 20 years or so (2002, good grief) and think grouping different events together is pretty confusing. It works better with the main annual severe weather post, and each approaching event receiving its own post.

 

[MattW]

Maybe I'm confused about what "for" or "against" mean. Does "against" mean we want it the old, more granular way?

 

[t0rNaD0ez]

(This could be a pain to create, but would make things very easy to find, once completed.)

I would propose categorizing events by year, then by quarter/season, then month, then (perhaps) multiday event, then having posts for a specific day in a thread. It creates a "directory hierarchy" and requires a couple of extra clicks to find, but it is neatly organized, and you know exactly where to go, in order to find something. This eliminates the need to scroll through a growing number of incessant pages and pages worth of threads, in order to find something...

Example:

2011
|
\ Spring
| |
| \ April
| |
| \ Forgotten Outbreak (4/15)
| | |
| | \ Whatever threads existed for event
| \ Superoutbreak (4/25-28)
| |
| \ Whatever threads ...
|
\ Summer
|
\ Hurricane Season
2012
|
\ etc

 

[WesL]

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.

 

[KevinH]

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.

@WesL FOR! Keep things the same!

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! Once THESE D9+ events are within D-1-8 range, then the following should apply:

Individual threads should be created when either:

1. An area of 15% or 30% risk is highlighted by the SPC in any of their D4-8 outlooks;

2. A area of Slight (or enhanced or higher??) risk is highlighted by the SPC for any D1-3. I am not sure if a slight risk would warrant a separate thread or if an enhanced thread should trigger a new thread???? Y’all can figure that out What has been done in the past?

3. Any any potential event (also D1-8) that is consistently signaled by most(?) models that hasn’t been highlighted by the SPC yet. This is probably more likely to happen during D9+ but things are so fluid and fickle with the weather soooooo *shrug*

Any event that has its risk category UPGRADED will remain in the existing thread.

Thread titles should ONLY continue include the event type (Winter/Severe), and the date(s) the event is expected (like they have been). People who are enable email subscriptions will see the title of the thread in their email so it is important to only include the most important details (what, where, when).

I started including the states at risk in the thread title. I won’t suggest that states at risk be in the title be a requirement, BUT someone who DOES will want to make sure the thread title is updated per the SPC outlook, possibly DAILY, as things could change. I have had to do that a couple times (which I don’t mind doing lol). Adding the states along with the dates in the thread title can help readers know which interest/affects them up front while scrolling through the list of thread titles without having to go digging through comments to find out. hahahahahaha

Adding the risk categories for reference:

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/SPC_probotlk_info.html

 

[GA Stormchaser]

I vote for specific dates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vonmac1]

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ctopher5]

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