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 18165 times)

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6852
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 3482
  • Likes Given: 2746
I voted Yes.  I would like to see the current "Update" and "Discussion" threads stay as-is but introduced an "Event" or "Live" Thread created just hours before the launch (etc) and when the event ends, manned by NSF reporting staff members with other members with vehicle background/work-related, etc, that could sig-up to the thread to added educational/vehicle information (etc) commentary.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2021 03:54 am by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa

Offline JimOnMars

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 9
  • 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.
.

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.

But why?

Post, DELETE, Post, DELETE, Post, DELETE, Post, DELETE...why do you want this?

Why is deleting people's posts not a barrier?


Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8438
  • Highway Whatever
  • Liked: 57197
  • Likes Given: 1104
 Everybody is making it too complicated. They just need to make Lar work harder.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline xor

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 4
Post, DELETE, Post, DELETE, Post, DELETE, Post, DELETE...why do you want this?

Why is deleting people's posts not a barrier?

Because [organic] forum rules exist whether someone knows them or not and that's part of the process of people learning and eventually contributing.

Lurking for a long time or diving right in, mistakes are part of learning. Yesterday's lurkers may be tomorrow's contributors. Are we really doing them a favor by pre-empting their possible contributions, or is there something else at play?

I haven't seen many made in bad faith.

MHO, being optimistic I suppose.

Offline tyrred

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 653
  • Likes Given: 15319

I voted yes and I think it should go beyond the SpaceX threads. There is too much opinions and guessing in the L2 threads. The L2 threads should be update only, with a few people that have been registered with the NASA Spaceflight folks as experts for that particular thread having the ability to discuss. Maybe a I have a question button that is closely monitored for abuse.

I don’t come to L2 for opinions and guessing. I come to the L2 area for informed insider updates.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35739
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19904
  • Likes Given: 10379
Suggestion: make clicking on “quote” on an Updates post bring you to the Discussion page by default.

Also, I want to reiterate that posting should only be restricted (and done so temporarily) if triggered by a mod due to too many people wrongly posting in Updates.

It’d also be kind of nice if you could click a button in the updates thread to bring you to the same point in time in the Discussion thread, or possibly some link to quoted posts (like in Twitter where you can see links to quote-tweets of a tweet).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 4624
No - Absolutely not

If we're going to start gate-keeping here, why not just drop the pretence and make the site read-only except to L2 members and verified aerospace professionals?

And considering what we've learned recently about one particular forum member who was been shown to not have the industry experience he claimed, I think "verification" would likely end up exposing a few others who have either insinuated or flat stated they have experience that they do not have.  It's easy to state you've been a highly-placed aerospace professional for decades, and getting the adulation from the amazing peoples here that such a reputation merits, when you're just a low-level mechanic who can *sometimes* talk the talk.  Sorta.

On the other hand, one pass at weeding those types out could be useful -- not to stop people from posting, but to require the presentation of a verified CV in order to gain an "industry expert" tag or somesuch.  Sort of like Instagram having "verified" members.  It might surprise an awful lot of people that some of the informally acknowledged "experts" around here may really have never worked on any of the projects they've pretended to work on...

I mean, seriously, who's to know?  Some posters around here are given WAY too much leeway because of their supposed expertise.  I, for one, would like to actually see a few of these people be willing to go through a verification process to be "verified industry experts" in order for the leeway they're given to feel justified.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline Joey D

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • NJ, USA
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 49
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.

It is not either/or. It can be both (which is what most of the "no" people are suggesting.)

1) Have some sort of confirmation for "updates" threads:  "Are you sure you want to post to this Update thread?  This is what update threads are for....  Consider posting in the corresponding discussion thread instead by clicking here...".  This is effectively "delete before the post"

AND

2) Mods continue to delete / move posts that are in fact in violation of the rules.  This is "delete after post".

Nothing says "Welcome brother!" by allowing brothers to post to threads when they have no reasonable way to know before posting that their post is in violation of the rules....and THEN they get a "big fat delete."
« Last Edit: 04/02/2021 01:13 pm by Joey D »

Offline rsnellenberger

  • Amateur wood butcher
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 775
  • Harbor Springs, Michigan
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 44
The mobile site view doesn’t help much - the attached screenshot is of the header for a L2 Update thread, but the big UPDATE flag at the END of the thread title has been elided on my iPhone 12...

Adding a “!!” flag at the beginning of all update thread titles would be quick, easy, and helpful.

(Edit: removed all possibly L2 info from screenshot)
« Last Edit: 04/02/2021 02:22 pm by rsnellenberger »

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 541
  • Liked: 522
  • Likes Given: 1777
My vote is for a a warning or a checkbox (are you sure this is an update, plz post questions in <link> thread)

I agree.

IMO, hard limits (number of posts, whitelisted users, etc.) would inevitably result in interesting updates being completely missed or posted much later (when they might become less useful for some folks).

Offline Moskit

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 16
Two ideas for "updates" UI change, although not sure if forum engine supports it.
Both are based on people understanding UPDATE ONLY rules but getting caught in the heat of the moment. These could help alleviate the problems before considering more restrictive measures.

- change the page background in "updates" to make them distinct. This would serve as a visual reminder that this is not a discussion thread.

- add another warning (distinct visually from other warnings) before a post is posted "This is an update thread. Are you sure your post is an update?". This could be combined with the idea of a specific group of known good posters who can post without that warning, as it would give them speed/facility and preserve an ability to post by the others.

Offline 1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
  • El Segundo, CA
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 9
Possibly the only limitation I can see is  minimum number of posts such as 100 posts or something similar. Many of the people making the mistake are new to the forums and don't fully understand the rules as many other forums do not have these types of posting rules. Veteran posters do occasionally make this mistake also (including myself), but usually remove it as soon as they realize the mistake. It's easy to make this mistake due to the number of threads many of us have open due to the limited scope of threads. But I think a certain amount of experience in the forum is the best way to handle this.

Edit: if a new user does have a useful update, they could always post in the discussion area for a veteran or mod to repost in updates.

Not sure if a post limit is the way to go. Highly knowledgeable users or actual industry users who don't post often will be left out. In my experience new users will start posting rubish or barely passable posts to reach 100 posts as soon as possible.

Personally, if a change is to be made, I think a post counter is the best way to go. For starters, it's already (at least somewhat) built into the forum.

But secondly, I suspect (but don't know) that the vast majority of update thread offenders are simply newer users who don't know the site rules; and not lurking industry experts. A brief probationary period for new users to get accustomed to the site rules seems perfectly reasonable to me. Better 100 crap posts in a discussion thread than 100 crap posts in an update thread; which then need to be removed.

And honestly, IMO, the knowledge of the experts is far better tapped in the discussion threads. Really, any thread that's not an update thread. With full respect to those who take their time to populate the update threads correctly, we don't really need expert knowledge to repost a tweet, or a post a screen capture from a live feed. IMO, Gems like Nomadd and bocachicagal are comparatively few and far between. YMMV.

I'm not going to vote yes or no. This is Chris' site. I'll abide whatever decision ends up making his workload and the workload of his team easier.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13432
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11796
  • Likes Given: 10991
Lots of good suggestions.

As of right now I'm not sure we have an easy technical way to implement some of them. I like the big popup but I myself don't know how to do it... (not to be confused with can't be done!!!)

I REALLY like the suggestion to "make clicking on “quote” on an Updates post bring you to the Discussion page by default..." so far no one who's looked at it has sorted out how to do it.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2021 02:35 am by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3849
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8011
  • Likes Given: 935
Lots of good suggestions.

As of right now I'm not sure we have an easy technical way to implement some of them. I like the big popup but I myself don't know how to do it... (not to be confused with can't be done!!!)

I REALLY like the suggestion to "make clicking on “quote” on an Updates post bring you to the Discussion page by default..." so far no one who's looked at it has sorted out how to do it.
I had made this suggestion a few years ago. In it I said if there was an established naming convention for threads it was not very difficult.

Eg:

[Base thread name] - Updates & Images

[Base thread name] - Discussion

Quote button uses current thread name in logic. If contains “Update” then post to “Discussion”. And if no associated Discussion then create and post.

Mods could easily ensure naming convention maintained
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8438
  • Highway Whatever
  • Liked: 57197
  • Likes Given: 1104
 I think we should just keep screwing around. Tilting the balance to far in the direction of order or chaos is always bad in movies.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4359
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 171
Yes. I don't usually advocate for more moderation but the any time SpaceX does something it's absolutely insane the amount of people we get on site. So the update threads need special protecting.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Chris Bergin

I have a much simpler solution. It Will take a bit of time to sort out, but 1) Won't mess with the forum software. 2) Won't mess with how it all looks.

We have a spare section, the "100,000 view post thread" which is defunct as threads get millions of views now.
1) Move all those threads back into their parent sections, which I've been thinking of doing as "Wow, 100,000 views" is no longer a "wow" these days. ;D

2) Move all the update-only threads into that empty section. Call it Starship Updates (or something). Restrict posting to a user group via a profile setting. A bit like how the Space Policy section works by being read-only unless you're a L2 member (and that's worked well). Obvious people in the user group like Future Space Tourist, Mary, etc., etc. We can add more as required.

3) Rename the current section (minus the update threads) Starship Discussion (or something) - and everyone can post in there.

Never again will there be a "new post" alert for a non-update post in the update threads.

Like if you approve!
« Last Edit: 04/10/2021 02:54 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 4624
The only issue is this makes it hard to swivel between the update and discussion threads.  Might I suggest a prominent link at top that's labeled "Want to post to this discussion?  Click HERE" and similar back-links from the discussion threads.

With that, you'd have my vote.  ;)
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline Yazata

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
  • Silicon Valley California
  • Liked: 151
  • Likes Given: 461
One of NSF's fundamental challenges is that it seemingly wants to be two different things at the same time.

On one hand it's a board for engineers and industry professionals. That's one of the wonderful things about it since it's hugely educational and enlightening for the rest of us.

On the other hand it's a gathering place for a growing horde of space enthusiasts. Since NSF has started its increasingly popular youtube channel it's attracting lots more of these. We (I'm one of them) are laypeople who are excited by space but typically lack a technical background or employment in the industry.

So, does the board want to grow itself by attracting public participation? Or does it want to evolve into some sort of online trade publication? If it moves in the latter direction, by all means limit who can participate to insiders of whatever sort. But if it wants to expand interest in space, then it needs to take care not to be too intimidating, hostile and dismissive.

Perhaps one solution might be for professionals who want to avoid posts that they consider low quality to make greater use of L-2. That could become the insiders' trade publication arm of NSF, a discussion board within a discussion board so to speak, consisting of nothing but posts of the desired higher standard.

Is it possible for the software to flag certain selected original content providers like Mary and Nomadd and copy their public update posts to the L-2 updates as well? I've seen Nomadd post in L-2 quite often and Chris Bergin often posts Mary's content there, so it's already happening pretty much.

That way both the 'yes' and the 'no' people would get what they seem to want. Updates in L-2 by only a selected cadre, notifications going out only for these -- while public updates remain open to all without telling people attracted by their love of space that in effect they aren't good enough to fully participate. (With the existing mod policies which I think are very good remaining in place of course.)
« Last Edit: 04/15/2021 04:54 am by Yazata »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0