kalvado
Topic Author
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

New factual information flag

Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:07 am

Yet another complainer for long meaningless crash threads here.
Still, the topic may be worth following... So how about some moderator-only flag signifying new factual information? As the simplest implementation using existing site functions, it can be just a portion of thread title with date and 2-3 words. Like
Atlas air crash: 3/3-CVR found later replaced by
Atlas air crash: 3/9: NTSB press conference
and so on?
 
kalvado
Topic Author
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: New factual information flag

Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:18 am

Plan B - pinned and locked thread, for moderator-only factual updates...
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 3435
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: New factual information flag

Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:02 am

kalvado wrote:

While I like the idea in theory, it ventures into territory that we generally want to steer clear from. It's our job to moderate discussion, enforce the rules, and keep things respectful; obviously we also participate as users, but it's generally fairly clear if we're posting as users or posting as moderators.

However, if we start regulating what's deemed "factual" or we start controlling the information that is presented, it makes us something very different from forum moderators. We're already constantly accused of censorship and bias, although it's usually by people who have a bone to pick with our enforcement actions. If we start dictating what's presented, it will only add to those accusations, and potentially lend them some legitimacy.

Don't get me wrong — I wish there were a way we could do something along the lines of what you're referring to, but I'm not sure there's a logical way that we could make that happen without undermining our ability to moderate.

On a personal level, I don't see the point in those long-running accident threads anyway. The discussion is largely dominated by speculation, rumors which usually prove false, and people frankly who don't have much of a clue what they're talking about. Meaningful discussion that occurs after an accident typically only comes after any official results of the investigation are released. By in large, it's extremely painful for me to moderate those threads, and I never participate; I think that's the case for most people who work in the industry who participate on this site. But that's just my opinion.
 
tupperjets
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:41 pm

Re: New factual information flag

Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:22 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
kalvado wrote:

On a personal level, I don't see the point in those long-running accident threads anyway. The discussion is largely dominated by speculation, rumors which usually prove false, and people frankly who don't have much of a clue what they're talking about. ... I never participate; I think that's the case for most people who work in the industry who participate on this site. But that's just my opinion.


Let's not forget the virtue-signal pissing contests over condolences to those lost and their families.

The problem for me is that aviation safety is the only topic covered on this forum that I am interested in; my participation here is limited to opening the threads and then closing them.
lessonslearned.faa.gov
 
YYZYYT
Posts: 1010
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:41 am

Getting Information About a Serious Incident

Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:12 pm

The recent tragedy involving ET 302 has me asking the same question as prior incidents. When something like this happens it's subject to intense interest and scrutiny and (understandably) threads about incidents immediately receive hundreds and hundreds and posts. The problem is that the vast majority of them contribute nothing to an actual discussion of what is known, what happened, etc. For example, in case: apart from the many "RIP" posts, there are hundreds and hundreds arguing over whether to ground 737 Max aircraft, many of which attack others for their views (we see it all the time: personal attacks, dismissive posts, sarcasm and ridicule).

In this case, by the time I awoke and saw the news there were already 400+ posts which mostly contributed nothing. I wanted to know what was known and up with the news related to the incident, but didn't have the time or energy to wade through hundreds (or now 1000+) such posts. So, I end up going back to mainstream media where facts are reported (but without informed discussion).

I know that the moderators can't prevent people form posting as long as rules are respected (that's the purpose of these threads, after all). I also know that even trying to do so would be overwhelming in terms of time involved. Sometimes people create separate threads to discuss significant news in such cases, but those are often overlooked or out of sync with the main discussion.

So... maybe we can approach it differently to keep this site relevant and useful, a place where we can go to get information. Perhaps there can be a separate locked thread which requires permission to post on, where actual facts can be added? "black boxes found", ATC info, radar data statements form parties involved, etc? That would provide an good way for all members to stay on top of developments....

And maybe also a link that takes you back to the main discussion thread as of the time when the fact is reported, so that one can pick up the discussion once the facts are added to the mix?

Just throwing out some ideas, does anyone else have any?
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 3435
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Getting Information About a Serious Incident

Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:23 pm

Something similar was suggested last week.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1416585

As I said there, such an idea would be a complex one for us to tackle. I like the idea, and and I think it's worth exploring, but we need to ensure that our role as forum moderators isn't misused. I would recommend you read my reply to that thread, as I go into a bit more detail. I genuinely do think it's a discussion worth having though.
 
YYZYYT
Posts: 1010
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:41 am

Re: Getting Information About a Serious Incident

Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:36 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
Something similar was suggested last week.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1416585

As I said there, such an idea would be a complex one for us to tackle. I like the idea, and and I think it's worth exploring, but we need to ensure that our role as forum moderators isn't misused. I would recommend you read my reply to that thread, as I go into a bit more detail. I genuinely do think it's a discussion worth having though.




LOL, I thought this must have been discussed already, but my search didn't catch this thread (one response even made the same suggestion). Please feel free to lock or delete this, I'll post over there.

Thanks (and know that your work is appreciated)!
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 3435
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Getting Information About a Serious Incident

Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:22 pm

YYZYYT wrote:
LOL, I thought this must have been discussed already, but my search didn't catch this thread (one response even made the same suggestion). Please feel free to lock or delete this, I'll post over there.

Thanks (and know that your work is appreciated)!

No problem! I went ahead and merged the threads — I'd rather do that than delete your post.

I do think there is some sort of solution that can be reached. Crash/incident threads are largely filled with misinformation, speculation, and general rubbish. It's hard for users to sift through the fodder to find some real information. Having a locked pinned thread at the top of the forum would be great for users to reference, but the challenge would be determining who would regulate that information, because I'm not so sure it should be a moderator. I think we (the mods) are all weary of being the ones to determine which information is presented
 
YYZYYT
Posts: 1010
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:41 am

Re: New factual information flag

Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:28 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
On a personal level, I don't see the point in those long-running accident threads anyway. The discussion is largely dominated by speculation, rumors which usually prove false, and people frankly who don't have much of a clue what they're talking about. Meaningful discussion that occurs after an accident typically only comes after any official results of the investigation are released. By in large, it's extremely painful for me to moderate those threads, and I never participate; I think that's the case for most people who work in the industry who participate on this site. But that's just my opinion.



That's the problem: we are all extremely interested in these incidents, but the threads are useless. for example, I gave up trying to read up on ET302 after less than 30 minutes, once the discussion devolved into personal attacks over "should we ground all 73M fleets?".

I do agree with you that the facts need to be investigated to know for certain what happened, but at the same time: information comes available which is interesting and also informative (eg, factual updates - such as boxes recovered", ATC communications, fr 24 plots, etc) which either gets little mention in mainstream media or which gets reported without any real insight or analysis. In the past, some of the more experienced members here have been able to comment and help the rest of us understand. Sometimes, they have been able to accurately predict future developments.

I like the idea of a "factual flag". This won't "censor' content of prevent people form posting as long as they follow the rules... but it will draw attention to significant developments, and (I strongly suspect) may steer the discussion back to actual events and away from the pissing contents which take place.

Perhaps, it can be added as a suggested course of action (such as "report this post"). Another forum member, other than the poster, could flag a post for the moderators and suggest that it contributes to the timeline, and is factually relevant? This will reduce the fallout for the moderators, they won't be expected to follow and read thousands of posts looking for "facts" but will instead only act on suggestions made by other (hopefully knowledgeable) members.
 
kalvado
Topic Author
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: New factual information flag

Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:24 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
.

Looks like there is a growing demand for the feature, e.g. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1421471#p21319817
so let me re-introduce the idea,

A separate thread for important events without endless discussions. (guilty myself) Seems even more needed with MAX saga.
Lets call it "links-only" post, as "facts" seem to much of a qualifier. Posting only by mods, or by certain list of users (depending on forum functionality).
Approximate criteria for posts:
(1) article in a reasonable news outlet (CNN, BBC, Reuter etc), or specialized outlet (AvHerald, Leeham, Dominic Gates at Seattle times).
(2) Official information: FAA, NTSB, and their foreign equivalents, manufacturers press releases (A&B, engine makers, subcontractors)
(3) reluctantly: rumors that may have substance, with clear rumor qualifier. Added because Atlas unintended control actuation is basically a rumor.

(1) and (2) significantly reduce amount of discretion required.

Each post is a link with 1-2 phrase summary; links can be submitted via "report to moderator" either in a locked thread or in a dumpster fire thread; apparently mods can post things directly as well.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 3435
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: New factual information flag

Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:08 pm

kalvado wrote:
atcsundevil wrote:
.

Looks like there is a growing demand for the feature, e.g. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1421471#p21319817
so let me re-introduce the idea,

A separate thread for important events without endless discussions. (guilty myself) Seems even more needed with MAX saga.
Lets call it "links-only" post, as "facts" seem to much of a qualifier. Posting only by mods, or by certain list of users (depending on forum functionality).
Approximate criteria for posts:
(1) article in a reasonable news outlet (CNN, BBC, Reuter etc), or specialized outlet (AvHerald, Leeham, Dominic Gates at Seattle times).
(2) Official information: FAA, NTSB, and their foreign equivalents, manufacturers press releases (A&B, engine makers, subcontractors)
(3) reluctantly: rumors that may have substance, with clear rumor qualifier. Added because Atlas unintended control actuation is basically a rumor.

(1) and (2) significantly reduce amount of discretion required.

Each post is a link with 1-2 phrase summary; links can be submitted via "report to moderator" either in a locked thread or in a dumpster fire thread; apparently mods can post things directly as well.

I don't disagree that this would be a good idea in theory, but I doubt this is a responsibility the moderating team wants to take on, because most of us don't feel it's our place to dictate what is "factual". It's not our role to determine fact from opinion, or to decide what information is presented to users; we're here to keep the forum civil and as organized as possible.

I recommend sending us an email at [email protected] with your ideas so that we can discuss internally, but it will be up to the head moderators to decide if they're willing to consider such an idea.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos