STORM2K

I count seven threads on Ernesto. There may even be more than that with the way some threads are closed and redirected early on. When you have two or three concurrent storms like we have now, you could be talking about 15 or 20 threads, if not more.

To me, this makes it very hard to keep up with and follow any kind of continuity of conversation.

WeatherGuesser wrote:I count seven threads on Ernesto. There may even be more than that with the way some threads are closed and redirected early on.

To me, this makes it very hard to keep up with and follow any kind of continuity of conversation.

You think it's hard to keep up with now? If we limited the number of threads on storms, it would be even more difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat so to speak. This way, we ask that members think a little more compartmentally about what their interest is with a particular storm. We're actually trying to make it easier on you and our fellow S2Kers.

If you have ideas for improvement, by all means, please let us know. This is always a work-in-progress.

Well, I think six threads are kind of common for an Atlantic system there days.
General Discussion
Advisories
Models
Recon
Recon Discussion
Preps and Obs

In the Epac, discussion, models and advisories are usually in one thread which make the thread kinda hard to read sometimes.

Portastorm wrote:If you have ideas for improvement, by all means, please let us know. This is always a work-in-progress.

Maybe separate subforums then for each storm to help with the intermixed clutter. I've pretty much quit posting on many of them because they're just too hard to follow and most of the posts are entirely irrelevant. People ask questions -- they get jumped on. People don't ask questions -- they get jumped on for not knowing something.

People get told not to quote images, yet they continue to do it multiple times on the same page.

Then there are those that quote and reply to multiple nested quotes so you end up with the same text quoted and requoted five or six times.

Sometimes, half the page is nothing but the disclaimer that takes up more space than the comments.

You have people posting not much more than links to their own web pages trying to redirect readers away from here.

Maybe if there were less clutter, there would be less need for multiple threads.

I'll tell you what WeatherGuesser ... let me discuss your concerns with the fellow mods and we'll see what we can do. I'm sorry to see you think people are getting "jumped on" around here. We try to be a friendly board and we are compared to some of the others.

Thanks for your feedback.

I like that everything is broken up.

There is an obs/prep thread that is usually stickied up top. This allows separation so obs and any evac notices/other prep stuff doesn't get buried within 20 minutes.

Recon is broken down into 2 threads so that one thread is specifically for the data/maps coming in, while the other is specifically for discussion of the data (keeps things way less cluttered for us doing recon, and easier to keep track, like when people need to switch out and such). Usually, there is a pretty good discussion going on in the discussion thread during the missions.

The model map helps me locate model runs rapidly (the maps do not get buried anywhere near as quickly), and helps keep the "this model went left! but this one right!" comments contained to that one section.

Discussions is just for that, if it doesn't fit into Recon or Models, it goes there. Sat observations, ADT estimates, general chatter about the convection blowing up around the storm, etc.

Advisories is strictly for advisories...though I don't really go there, since I go to the NHC most of the time.

I was here prior to it being broken down like this...threads commonly got to be 100+ pages (I think the record was some 400 pages?), with almost everything being piled on. It caused a huge strain on the servers (causing the whole site to crash during storms like Wilma or Katrina), and for locating something more than 10 minutes old, was a total nightmare. Need to find yesterday's model run image that was posted? Sort through 30+ pages to find it!

Perhaps for storms like Florence, which are out in the ocean and will garner little comments, we could go with the old format...but for storms like Ernesto, not so much.

brunota2003 wrote:It caused a huge strain on the servers ...

And yet people post mega-file sized images and animations like these when links would do fine.

cycloneye wrote:Getting larger in size and getting that look.

http://icons-ak.wunderground.com/data/i ... t_anim.gif

Shuriken wrote:I'm not much of a fan of computer finger-painting, but here's the last day's microwave:

http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/m ... t24hrs.gif

http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mimic-tc/tc.shtml

And then re-posted just a page later:

Ivanhater wrote:http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mimic-tc/2012_05L/webManager/gifsBy12hr_03.gif

Almost 10Mb in just those three posts.

brunota2003 wrote:I like that everything is broken up.

There is an obs/prep thread that is usually stickied up top. This allows separation so obs and any evac notices/other prep stuff doesn't get buried within 20 minutes.

Recon is broken down into 2 threads so that one thread is specifically for the data/maps coming in, while the other is specifically for discussion of the data (keeps things way less cluttered for us doing recon, and easier to keep track, like when people need to switch out and such). Usually, there is a pretty good discussion going on in the discussion thread during the missions.

The model map helps me locate model runs rapidly (the maps do not get buried anywhere near as quickly), and helps keep the "this model went left! but this one right!" comments contained to that one section.

Discussions is just for that, if it doesn't fit into Recon or Models, it goes there. Sat observations, ADT estimates, general chatter about the convection blowing up around the storm, etc.

Advisories is strictly for advisories...though I don't really go there, since I go to the NHC most of the time.

I agree with all of the above, easier to locate what you are looking for.

WeatherGuesser wrote:Maybe separate subforums then for each storm to help with the intermixed clutter.

Subforums would create even more clutter and confusion IMO. They would serve no purpose for those who click "View new posts" because the threads would show up in the list anyway. "View new posts" is a great tool, because you don't have to waste time looking around in threads with no new activity.

Human nature is odd. We crave new things, but simultaneously dislike change.

So I say....If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

brunota2003 wrote:I like that everything is broken up.

There is an obs/prep thread that is usually stickied up top. This allows separation so obs and any evac notices/other prep stuff doesn't get buried within 20 minutes.

Recon is broken down into 2 threads so that one thread is specifically for the data/maps coming in, while the other is specifically for discussion of the data (keeps things way less cluttered for us doing recon, and easier to keep track, like when people need to switch out and such). Usually, there is a pretty good discussion going on in the discussion thread during the missions.

The model map helps me locate model runs rapidly (the maps do not get buried anywhere near as quickly), and helps keep the "this model went left! but this one right!" comments contained to that one section.

Discussions is just for that, if it doesn't fit into Recon or Models, it goes there. Sat observations, ADT estimates, general chatter about the convection blowing up around the storm, etc.

Advisories is strictly for advisories...though I don't really go there, since I go to the NHC most of the time.

I was here prior to it being broken down like this...threads commonly got to be 100+ pages (I think the record was some 400 pages?), with almost everything being piled on. It caused a huge strain on the servers (causing the whole site to crash during storms like Wilma or Katrina), and for locating something more than 10 minutes old, was a total nightmare. Need to find yesterday's model run image that was posted? Sort through 30+ pages to find it!

Perhaps for storms like Florence, which are out in the ocean and will garner little comments, we could go with the old format...but for storms like Ernesto, not so much.

I agree, I don't post but lurk and check up on what is going on, it works fine as far as I can see. I am a mod on a bird forum and we were told to combine threads and clean them up... When something is working fine why change things

Well, if you want to streamline the number of threads, there's one simple way to knock it down by one thread per storm for the Atlantic and East Pacific regions: axe the advisories thread. Every advisory and graphic is hosted and archived on the NHC site, so putting them here is redundant. Every modern browser is tabbed (and for security reasons, everyone had best be on the most up to date version of their chosen browser!), so there's really no argument in regards to having to go to a different site - keep an s2k tab and an NHC tab open. If there's particularly pertinent passages, users can and do post snippets in the discussion thread.

WeatherGuesser wrote:Maybe separate subforums then for each storm to help with the intermixed clutter.

That is a terrible idea, that would destroy the flow of information entirely for a TC and annoy everyone to no end. I'm already not a fan of the separate subforum for Wpac TCs.

WeatherGuesser wrote:I've pretty much quit posting on many of them because they're just too hard to follow and most of the posts are entirely irrelevant. People ask questions -- they get jumped on. People don't ask questions -- they get jumped on for not knowing something.

People get told not to quote images, yet they continue to do it multiple times on the same page.

Then there are those that quote and reply to multiple nested quotes so you end up with the same text quoted and requoted five or six times.

I don't have a problem with any of this. I also don't notice any of this becoming an issue.

WeatherGuesser wrote:Sometimes, half the page is nothing but the disclaimer that takes up more space than the comments.

On a side note, the disclaimer thing is getting a bit out of control. I don't know why we need to even do this in the first place as the entire subfourm has that banner at the top and is connected to every thread within the subfourm. I don't know who would confuse our posts for official information considering they should know the difference plus the disclaimer.

WeatherGuesser wrote:You have people posting not much more than links to their own web pages trying to redirect readers away from here.

Maybe if there were less clutter, there would be less need for multiple threads.

No idea what your talking about here, never seen this as an issue.

I agree with brunota2003, I'm fine with this broken up format and if its not broken, do not change it. When the TC is finished, all those threads become one mega thread anyways so its all together.

In terms of how storm threads are created, one change that I wouldn't mind seeing is the original pre-Invest thread in the Talkin' Tropics subforum carried over to the Active Storms subforum and continued (renamed of course) as it is once it becomes an Invest. I don't know why its locked and a new one is started. That way you don't have to hunt down the thread for a particular storms' origins.

Yea, disclaimer can be a pain, but it is required and has been explained numerous times in the past.

Also, when you put someone on your Foe list so that you don't see their posts, they still show up when someone quotes them. Kinda defeats the purpose.