Poll

Should there be more limits on who can post UPDATES in SpaceX

Yes
162 (50.9%)
No
156 (49.1%)

Total Members Voted: 318


Author Topic: Poll: Should there be more limits on who can post UPDATES in SpaceX threads?  (Read 34823 times)

Offline JimOnMars

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
If they really have new info (like found debris or an image different than the dozens already there) they should be able to send it to a mod. No, you don't need to post right this second.  What happens if your post is delayed?  Does the world stop spinning?  What happens if you have to post in the discussion thread?  Does the world stop spinning?

That's ridiculous.  Mods don't have nearly enough time to cover the quantity of updates SpaceX generates and posting it in discussion doesn't help anything.  IIRC, moving posts is actually a non-trivial PITA
Which is exactly what we have now.  Mods don't have time to comb through the update thread every 30 seconds waiting for a non-update, then go through the hassle to move it.  If 100 people send them non-updates for the update thread, they can just dump them into the round file...they don't even have to read them if they don't want to.  Easy Peasy.

Offline AC in NC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2484
  • Raleigh NC
  • Liked: 3628
  • Likes Given: 1950
Mods don't have time to comb through the update thread every 30 seconds waiting for a non-update, then go through the hassle to move it.  If 100 people send them non-updates for the update thread, they can just dump them into the round file...they don't even have to read them if they don't want to.  Easy Peasy.
They don't do that.  And they couldn't dump them without reading them and accomplish anything meaningful with such a change.

This is precisely the same thing as throngs of people thinking they've got the latest hot new idea that SpaceX has never thought of.  The team has been doing this a long time and the excellent system we have now is the end result of them understanding the trades and creating one of the best systems on the interwebs.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2021 10:14 pm by AC in NC »

Offline Joey D

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • NJ, USA
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 49
Which is exactly what we have now.  Mods don't have time to comb through the update thread every 30 seconds waiting for a non-update, then go through the hassle to move it....

Apparently they do.  Or technically there are enough active non-mods reporting posts to mods to take action.  It's actually quite remarkable in how fast posts are moderated in this forum.

If you restrict who can post in a so-called "update thread" then by definition you will not get some legitimate updates from some folks who have them but are not "experienced enough" to be let into the "update thread club."

I am all for making it "harder" to post in an update thread (confirmations followed by immediate temporary ban if you ignore the pop-up confirmations, etc.)  That should cut down on incorrect posts while at the same time not discouraging wide participation.

Offline Faerwald

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 67
No.
There will be times that people not on the list of "elite" members do find something that is worthy of the update thread.

Offline JimOnMars

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
Which is exactly what we have now.  Mods don't have time to comb through the update thread every 30 seconds waiting for a non-update, then go through the hassle to move it....

Apparently they do.  Or technically there are enough active non-mods reporting posts to mods to take action.  It's actually quite remarkable in how fast posts are moderated in this forum.

If you restrict who can post in a so-called "update thread" then by definition you will not get some legitimate updates from some folks who have them but are not "experienced enough" to be let into the "update thread club."

I am all for making it "harder" to post in an update thread (confirmations followed by immediate temporary ban if you ignore the pop-up confirmations, etc.)  That should cut down on incorrect posts while at the same time not discouraging wide participation.
A single, solid post (containing actual updates) would qualify you for the "update thread club."  It's exactly the same as we have now, except people's notifications aren't spammed.

Why are the 'No' sayers not complaining that their posts were removed?  I just do not understand this attitude.  Why is it perfectly acceptable for a post to exist for 30 seconds (or some other unit of time) and then be wiped, but somehow it is wrong for a post to exist for zero seconds?  What, really, is the difference?

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Greece
  • Liked: 527
  • Likes Given: 10552
My vote is for a a warning or a checkbox (are you sure this is an update, plz post questions in <link> thread)

Offline PDZiemer

My vote is no.
I primarily lurk on the forum.  I see other issues in the threads that upset me way more than an occasional non-update in the update thread.  There is the constant bickering and arguing that gets started up on a regular basis between people who seem to want to prove that they know more than anyone else.  Arguing over semantics makes me nuts!  But back to the subject at hand.
I think that the suggestion to have a secondary confirmation that the post is going where it is intended to go (update or discussion) is a great one.  In the few cases where I have posted, I have hovered over the post button with trepidation, worrying that I was saying something useful in the right place.  It is one of the reasons that I am so hesitant to post.  I just got a warning that there have been 2 posts to this thread while I was typing, suggesting that I might want to review my post.  A similar warning for update threads might be an easy solution.
I am L2 as if that matters, but I should not have any additional rights to post updates than someone else because most everyone here probably knows a lot more about rockets than I do.  I am just a polymer scientist, not a rocket scientist.  I would rather skim over a few posts that are in the wrong place than to miss something that I want to know because the person who witnessed an event or knew a piece of important information did not have the proper posting rights.
Nothing that can be done will make the situation go away completely, so my preference would be to keep restrictions to a minimum.  Keep up the great work everyone!  I appreciate all that I learn here.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I voted yes and only during live events to L2 Members which helps support the site... Other times are fine and anyone can make a mistake from time to time... You can still post it to the Discussion Thread...

Edit to Add:

That’s just pay to win.....
No L2 pays for the servers so that you can say that...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Joey D

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • NJ, USA
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 49
A single, solid post (containing actual updates) would qualify you for the "update thread club." 

How does one make a single, solid post to an update thread...if they have not yet made a single solid post to an update thread to "qualify?"  And what happens when subsequent to qualification, they make an erroneous post? 

Quote
Why are the 'No' sayers not complaining that their posts were removed?

Edit: Sorry...I misread your statement..I am modifying my response:
.
The no sayers are not complaining because we understand the reason for the moderation.

But this is not about people not wanting their posts moderated or moved.   This is about potentially taking action (banning some class of member) that can discourage / prevent actual quality posts from being made. 

It's a trade-off worth discussion for sure.  But you must understand that preventing a "class" of users from posting in a thread is in fact a trade-off: you may increase the signal to noise ratio...but you might also decrease the absolute signal.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2021 10:45 pm by Joey D »

Offline JimOnMars

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
A single, solid post (containing actual updates) would qualify you for the "update thread club." 

How does one make a single, solid post to an update thread...if they have not yet made a single solid post to an update thread to "qualify?"  And what happens when subsequent to qualification, they make an erroneous post? 

Quote
Why are the 'No' sayers not complaining that their posts were removed?

Edit: Sorry...I misread your statement..I am modifying my response:
.
The no sayers are not complaining because we understand the reason for the moderation.

But this is not about people not wanting their posts moderated or moved.   This is about potentially taking action (banning some class of member) that can discourage / prevent actual quality posts from being made. 

It's a trade-off worth discussion for sure.  But you must understand that preventing a "class" of users from posting in a thread is in fact a trade-off: you may increase the signal to noise ratio...but you might also decrease the absolute signal.

You make a post by sending it to the mod.  Perhaps there could be a special button for this...or perhaps posts to the forum could never show until moderated (automatically for those in the 'club').

You are currently prevented from posting in the updates thread.  Right now.  Your 'class' is not allowed.  What is so offensive that an automated tool pre-filters your 'class' instead of a person filtering the 'class'?

The only difference, at all, in these two cases are: 

1 - currently posts from your 'class' stay up for 30 seconds, or longer.  Discussed system sets this to zero.
2 - every post from your 'class' dings the notifications on that thread.  Discussed system prevents this.
3 - currently moderators delete your 'class'.  Discussed system it is not necessary.
4 - No button currently exists for a person of your 'class' to post to restricted threads.  Discussed system would include this (or moderated the thread.)

You are currently in a class of posters who are not allowed to post (permanently) to the thread.  You seem to be OK with this.  Isn't this classism?

Yes, you can now post for 30 seconds before being wiped.  Hooray!  Viva la revolución!  This is really all you want?



Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 932
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1566
  • Likes Given: 801
I just used report to mod because this ENTIRE poll/thread is in the wrong place to begin with.  It has nothing to do with SpaceX or SS.  Anyone see the irony here?  ;)

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
I had OP, sorry for the meta-posting. Purpose was partly as a sacrificial anode to take some of the non-update mod angst out of the discussion thread. It did that but there's still no shortage of silliness in the discussion threads.
But for the poll  I see we're converging on 50% each way.

Since a change in a successful model probably needs a supermajority, probably best to leave it the way it is, but the idea of a warning button that requires a second verification for an UPDATES thread post seems like it has a lot of support.

Offline Vanspace

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 291
  • Canada
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 318
I voted yes. For the future, when the problem of flooding Updates with garbage posts will be caused intentionally. I think I speak to the lived experience of a LOT of users when I say that every community site from knitting to kite flying eventually becomes the target of this tactic.

NSF Update threads are useful information because they are generally free from noise and jamming.

Practical Implementation: Have a whitelist of the 100 or so people who regularly have updates to post. They can direct submit. Anyone else who tries has their post automatically redirected to post in the discussion thread. If the material actually belongs in the update thread, it should not be long before somebody on the whitelist notices the fact and moves it. This process handles the majority of cases (should be in discussion) while reasonably handling edge cases with a minimum anybody having to work much.

One of the unique advantages that NSF posses is a rabid herd of OCD Nerds. Any hint of New, Newsworthy or Updated information showing up in the discussion threads always attracts a highly visible reaction like dropping a cow into piranhas. The size of the commotion is a gauge of how much meat the post contains. I note that a number of now regular posters of info-graphics, maps and such got pushed by discussion threads to put them in Updates. Before my time but my understanding is that this same process is how BocaChicaGal was discovered by NSF.

1) The vast majority of good Update posts are from a few users. Whitelist them.
2) The vast majority of what is left should be in discussion. Put them there automatically.
3) If somebody actual has good stuff, move that to Update.  Its pretty easy to tell when it happens. If it happens to the same user a couple of times consider whitelisting them. This way mods get to enjoy helping high quality new contributors while not having to deal with the other type as much. It won't happen often, so let them have this tiny bit of joy in their otherwise miserable mod existence.
"p can not equal zero" is the only scientific Truth. I could be wrong (p<0.05)

Offline chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 1108
  • Likes Given: 170
I just used report to mod because this ENTIRE poll/thread is in the wrong place to begin with.  It has nothing to do with SpaceX or SS.  Anyone see the irony here?  ;)

That's not totally true.. The mis-posts happen mostly in the Starship section.

Offline xor

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
I voted No.

This is my understanding:

Moderators are doing a fantastic job!
Update threads aren't being DDoSed--most are accidental posts happening in the heat of the moment, including sometimes by experienced posters (whitelisting will not be a panacea).
But this isn't a long lived problem because... mods are cleaning things up quickly!

I'd support an extra dialog of "This is an update thread, are you sure?" though I wonder how that would with Tapatalk or whatever other mobile software that might be in use.

So what's really the pain point if moderators are on top of things? Immediate email notifications

We're talking about changing an otherwise working moderation system to a blind whitelisting system as far as I can tell primarily because of the notification system.

Is there any way to make a better notification system than emails? If not, is that worth special user classes?

I would have added to one or two topics in the Politics section, but I'm not L2. I could have cross-posted it to the party thread or such, but instead I just let it go.

Here's the attitude I have, and I would hope most users do as well: In the unlikely event I'm lucky enough to visit Boca Chica or have exclusive pictures or news about any spaceflight event, I would love to have the honor of posting to an update thread as a useful part of the historical record.

Whatever happens with this, I'm still grateful for NSF and all the contributors here. I've learned so much, and I don't expect that to change no matter what is implemented here.

FWIW, I've mentioned this before in other threads: I really find it incredibly helpful to use the existing notifications to collect interesting threads by turning off all emails by setting it to notify me of "Nothing at all", and ultimately use the Profile - Notifications list as a landing page and read the New threads backwards.

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Liked: 1198
  • Likes Given: 3429
I voted no

Every so often a newbie like Nomad shows up.   A prescribed system of special, blessed update people will prevent/discourage wonderful sources from participating.   

Less is more

The best moderator is NO moderator

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
I voted no, with the proviso that each post in an update thread must be confirmed by the poster that it is actually an update, not a question or a comment. A simple checkbox should be sufficient.


Offline JimOnMars

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
I voted no

Every so often a newbie like Nomad shows up.   A prescribed system of special, blessed update people will prevent/discourage wonderful sources from participating.   

Less is more

The best moderator is NO moderator

But this isn't the question.

Currently there is a moderator who works his/her butt off to delete all these non-update posts.

Nobody (except a rare few) seem to be asking to get rid of this moderator.  Hip tip...won't happen.

The question is to the manner of deletion.  Either delete before the post (i.e. never let it happen in the first place) or delete after the post.  Many people think that getting their posts deleted within minutes is the best way to welcome new members.  Nothing says "Welcome brother!  Welcome sister!" better than a big, fat DELETE.

Personally, I think that's nuts.  Just me, I guess.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2021 02:21 am by JimOnMars »

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1054
  • Liked: 1198
  • Likes Given: 3429
I voted no

Every so often a newbie like Nomad shows up.   A prescribed system of special, blessed update people will prevent/discourage wonderful sources from participating.   

Less is more

The best moderator is NO moderator

But this isn't the question.

Currently there is a moderator who works his/her butt off to delete all these non-update posts.

Nobody (except a rare few) seem to be asking to get rid of this moderator.  Hip tip...won't happen.

The question is to the manner of deletion.  Either delete before the post (i.e. never let it happen in the first place) or delete after the post.  Many people think that getting their posts deleted within minutes is the best way to welcome new members.  Nothing says "Welcome brother!  Welcome sister!" better than a big, fat DELETE.

Personally, I think that's nuts.  Just me, I guess.
.

Sorry I didn’t really mean to get rid of the moderation scheme that is currently used here.

I meant to imply that we should not have barriers for normal people posting into any threads. In other words moderation in a broad context.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8791
  • Liked: 4712
  • Likes Given: 768
I voted no

Every so often a newbie like Nomad shows up.   A prescribed system of special, blessed update people will prevent/discourage wonderful sources from participating.   

Less is more

The best moderator is NO moderator

But this isn't the question.

Currently there is a moderator who works his/her butt off to delete all these non-update posts.

Nobody (except a rare few) seem to be asking to get rid of this moderator.  Hip tip...won't happen.

The question is to the manner of deletion.  Either delete before the post (i.e. never let it happen in the first place) or delete after the post.  Many people think that getting their posts deleted within minutes is the best way to welcome new members.  Nothing says "Welcome brother!  Welcome sister!" better than a big, fat DELETE.

Personally, I think that's nuts.  Just me, I guess.
.

Sorry I didn’t really mean to get rid of the moderation scheme that is currently used here.

I meant to imply that we should not have barriers for normal people posting into any threads. In other words moderation in a broad context.
That scheme has failed many times over the years so what exists now will not be changing any time soon.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1