Keeping UMSF at an 'impressively high level', Please take a moment to read Options

[djellison]

I, my ever-helpful co-admins, and several members have all noticed that UMSF has begun to get a little bit 'noisy' recently. Its #1 quality is often cited as being the signal-to-noise ratio, and in the last few months, this has suffered to a certain extent. This post is an attempt to explain how and why I think it's happened, and the rules that we are now putting in place and some action that we are taking/will take to attempt to return UMSF to the prior level of discourse.

UMSF started life, as some of you will know, as a much smaller, MER-specific forum, and over time grew to include Cassini, and then essentially everything it covers today. Relaunching as UMSF just over 12 months ago saw the beginning of a more popular forum, and as more people have begun posting, the quality of discussion has, to an extent, suffered. For more than a year, I've been expecting it - it's part of a forum's growth pattern and is often the point at which a forum is made or broken. UMSF has always done well by having an informal, silent but understood agreement between its members which up until the 500-or-so membership level worked beautifully, but as more people have joined, has broken down considerably. As a result these rules are now going to have to be formalised and enforced - forcefully and rapidly. Some of them may alienate some members, some may be seen as an attempt to 'censor' or 'silence' certain trains of thought and, to be brutally honest, in some cases that is not altogether untrue. UMSF exists for the discussion of UMSF...that's the reality of it. If you want to talk about something else, go elsewhere.

1. Acceptable Subject Matter
- 1.1 The clue is in the name of the forum. If what you are posting is not related either to Unmanned Spaceflight, or a directly related matter, it may be deleted without notice.
- 1.2 Politics - the discussion of policy is acceptable, the distribution of money within agencies is a valid and reasonable subject - however this is different to political debate. Discussion of politicians, political parties, various topics of the moment (Iraq, Terrorism) are all very much off topic and posts that include them will be removed.
- 1.3 Astrobiology - Discussion relating to biological instrumentation past or proposed is acceptable. i.e. Viking instrumentation yes - Martian Meteorites - no. This may meet objection, but again - there are other places for this sort of discussion, take it there.
- 1.4 Manned Spaceflight - changes will soon be made to the Manned Spaceflight forum - bottom line, it's fundamentally off topic to this forum, and in combination with 1.2 it is one of the primary sources of arguments and 'ranting'. Most people agree that Shuttle/ISS is a monetary hog - we do NOT need to see it mentioned every other post. This forum does not exist as a platform to be anti-manned spaceflight (despite the title) - do not use it as one.
- 1.5 Conspiracy theories and pseudo-science are totally unacceptable.
- 1.6 Other guidelines may be added as and when they become necessary.

2. Acceptable Behaviour
- 2.1 Every post must remain respectful of the opinion of others, even if contrary to your own.
- 2.2 Posts should make a contribution. Think - does what I am about to post add anything to the discussion. If the answer is no - should you really be posting it?
- 2.3 Before asking a question or starting a thread for which there might be something similar already in existence, have a brief look for a similar thread, or use the forum search tool to search for it first.
- 2.4 Don't rant. If you have a point to make...make it and move on. Do not litter your every post making the same point again and again. If you want somewhere to vent - get yourself a blog. (P.S., this place is a forum or discussion group - NOT a blog...sorry, just a personal rant there, I wont mention it again...see )
- 2.5 Arguments. If an argument between two people begins, take it to email or private message - we don't want to see your fights in the forum.

3. Posting etiquette
- 3.1 Formatting - do not use excessive formatting. It looks messy and childish. Use it only when it is necessary to make your message clear (such as my MRO MOI time line thread).
- 3.2 Images - do not post an image 'in line' (i.e. one that will load when someone views that thread) if it is more than 100kb. This is to maintain the sanity of those who still use slower connections.
- 3.3 Attached images - do not attach an image to a thread that is freely viewable on a server elsewhere - simply link to it.
- 3.4 Scientific papers are always a useful and valuable resource, but many forum members are not fortunate enough to have subscription access to the various bodies that manage them. If you post a link to a paper which will require a log in, say so in the post (i.e. http://dngsdgsadgdsg/asdgdsa.pdf (requires login) ) - to save people without access finding out the hard way. Only post links to papers directly relevant to a discussion and that fit the rules of section 1
- 3.5 Quoting. If you're replying to a post - you don't need to quote it in full, or indeed at all if it's the first reply to that post. It simply litters threads and makes them harder to scroll through. Also, avoid quoting images, it causes the same problem.

That's all for now - but they will evolve and change with time as the need arises - they are a sensible start however. These rules wont be exercised retroactively - what has been posted is done. These rules apply from now and will be enforced without warning.

I've had a struggle with my own conscience about this entire issue - how to address the problem without seeming to be a censor or overly draconian. But at the end of the day, to maintain the high quality this place enjoys, rules are now clearly required. If you object to them, if you find them contrary to your own standards, then perhaps UMSF is not the place for you and you should consider joining other discussion forums instead.

A few members (two) will be getting temporary suspensions with a request to either post within these new guidelines, or leave. A further two have or are about to have a repeated request to change their posting behaviour or, again, leave (they may or may not elect to respond to this thread, but they can't magically remove the damage that they have done over the past few months). This course of action will be deployed more rapidly in the future to maintain standards.

No one here could question my admiration of MER PI Steve Squyres, and last April he was kind enough to send me a brief note about UMSF which made me very very proud of what the place had become - "Both the discourse and the image work are at an impressively high level," he said.

We all need to think a little before pressing 'post new topic' or 'post reply' to make sure that Steve's kind words remain true and UMSF maintains its healthy reputation, high quality of content, and good-natured debate and discussion.

I hope none of this upsets the long-standing, well-respected members of UMSF, the people who are the foundation upon which the reputation and content of this place stand. I often find myself in awe of some people's contributions, and it is because of the content which so often amazes me that I must take this action to keep its home a happy one.

In closing, I wish to thank my co-admins, whose input into making this change in policy has been so valuable, for their ever-helpful opinions and support - Guys, I couldnt do it without you. They are the 'directors' of this place, and I am forever grateful for their help and advice. However, we need people at a step below that - moderators - to help deploy these new rules. If you are a member of more than 6 months, with several hundred posts to your name and might be able to take on the task of looking after a little bit of UMSF, let me know. It's a thankless job, but you get two perks - access to the Administrators forum (the 'board room' for the directors), and if you would like one, an @unmannedspaceflight.com email address.

This has been a big long post, and well done for getting to the end of it - and I hope that it will begin a refocus of UMSF to give it the big long future it deserves.

Doug

[djellison]

I was hoping you would mention that Emily - I didn't want to pimp it (not my forum) but currently it's a quiet, but well maintained place and I'm sure some great discussion could kick off over there!

And frankly, if you're not a TPS member - then you should be ashamed

Doug

[elakdawalla]

My position on all this is that Doug's very single minded vision and dedication have made this place what it is more than anything else. He hasn't been wrong in the past and I'm glad to see that he still has a clear vision of where he wants this to go. This demonstration of strong and decisive management is very welcome, great things rarely happen without it.

Hear, hear. What makes this forum unique -- apart from its much vaunted signal-to-noise ratio -- is the depth of discussions on image processing and the quality of work that the forum participants are doing on that. There is no other place like it on the Web, and I think that the niche is worth defending. Ever since I discovered as a grad student that this data was out there I was wishing that there was a place for people to meet and exchange ideas about what they could do with the data, tips on how to do it, and share the results; this is that place, and I am delighted that it's here.

--Emily

[helvick]

And frankly, if you're not a TPS member - then you should be ashamed

Err. Duly ashamed but that lapse has now been rectified.

[chris]

Err. Duly ashamed but that lapse has now been rectified.

Ditto

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Doug,

I don't agree with your implicit statement as what subjects like SETI or astrobiology would necessarily attract kooks, and subjects like MERs would not. If you remember some experience on "another forum" there was a full team of kooks commenting the MER images. From my own experience in other forums, any subject will atract kooks, stalkers, spammers, etc. I remember a painful experience with a forum on 3D modeling (the kind of place where I could meet you) where I was insulted and attacked in a very deloyal way for not being some sort of punk, and also on another forum of a non-violent organization!

Basically what makes the quality of a forum is a proper management, including a discrete but firm hand to expell the kooks, stalkers, spammers, etc as soon as they appear. Usually people with unpleasant behaviour start in a friendly way, and only little by little they become unpleasant, up to open conflict when other posters try to defend of them. But there is no way to really defend correct posters if the forum manager don't remove the unpleasant/useless messages. And this can happen on any forum, provided that the moderator lets do, either he is weak, stupid or accomplice. (In a legal case, he will be considered accomplice).

So, you want to restrict your scope, that is your right, you have good reasons, you don't need to justify with such motives as above. I think it is possible to lead a forum on any subject, including fringe ones, provided that bad posters are rebuffed at once.

So I shall look at elakdawalla's planetary society forum. The idea to make another forum is interesting too, but unfortunately I am not in a situation to do so. And, what makes the interest of UMSF is not only the absence of kooks, but also the presence of several competent scientists working directly in the field, witth the best data at hand. I am afraid they will not follow if someones opens another forum or more general or more fringe topics, so that it may be better to go on other existing forums.

I remind interested people that I have several embryonic forums on my own site http://www. shedrupling.org on topics like epistemology, relations between science and spirituality, 3D virtual worlds, and in a general way on how to make our world and lifes better. But I am worse than Doug: moderation a priori (I publish a message only if it fits my limits).

[Shaka]

As one who has made several requests for clear posting guidelines, I am pleased to see them available now, though it would have been to my advantage if they had been available a few months earlier. I am in agreement with those rules currently available and will try to post in accordance with them. So long as they are applied uniformly, I see no serious difficulties in all members accepting them.
I have had some difficulty using the new "Insert Image" button in the format tool bar ( as opposed to the older system which seemed to automatically convert images to thumbnails for the post.) A brief summary of techniques for using this button properly with images not on the web would help me to avoid infringements of the image rules. If such guidance is already in the Help section, I have been unable to locate it.

Since I do not have the time to work through the entire forum, but enter on the MER page, a brief notice and/or link here to any new additions to the rules would also be helpful.

I might just note that a couple of minor issues not yet addressed in the rules are humor and 'coarse' or 'vulgar' language. They are difficult and subjective issues to precisely define, but they are a potential source of disagreement about "Acceptable Behaviour" and what is "Off Topic". It would be helpful if at least broad guidelines were available.

[dvandorn]

Well, I'm sure that Doug will observe a certain moderation in his application of these rules, since there are certainly many, many posts here (even in the past day or two) which have absolutely nothing to do with unmanned spaceflight, even by the most liberal reading of Doug's definition. Including one or two by Doug himself -- though, to be fair, while a picture of a drone rover in the Antarctic has nothing to do with UMSF, Doug *did* sort of tie it in by noting a resemblance (that I couldn't see) of the scene to Meridiani's plains. And he posted it in the "this has nothing to do with UMSF" forum, which, if you're going to ignore the rules about posting about things other than UMSF, is I guess the right place to put it...

In other words, I don't think Doug is planning to be generally unpleasant about all of this -- eh, Doug? I think we all trust you to be rational about it. And a good, general codification of the rules *has* been well received, I think.

We know you make sacrifices to keep this place as good as it is, Doug. Please don't ever think we don't appreciate it.

-the other Doug

[djellison]

I might just note that a couple of minor issues not yet addressed in the rules are humor and 'coarse' or 'vulgar' language. They are difficult and subjective issues to precisely define

No they're not. You use basic common sense. If I have to hold peoples hands over what words are and are not acceptable in day to day public useage, they're not welcome here. I have intentionally left out such a rule for that very reason.

Doug

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

With my opinion, humour can be accepted, and limited only if a joke completely hijacks a thread. But coarse language or vulgarity are not necessary for making jokes.

[CosmicRocker]

Well, I'm sure that Doug will observe a certain moderation in his application of these rules...

Ditto to that, dvandorn. I think you hit it on the head.

I, too noticed a certain drop in the S/N ratio recently, but it would appear that current management practices have got that under control without a lot of complaints.

Our host's posting of what have always been the generally accepted rules for most forum communications, along with some basic netiquette seems appropriate to me. I thought Doug did a nice job of laying out some general guidelines for the forum. Reading through this thread has shown me how difficult managing a large forum can be.

It's still the best forum on the web.

[paxdan]

Thanks for the guidelines Doug.

There are some other forum management techniques you may already know about:

Another option is to hide parts of UMSF from search engines using the robots.txt protocol. The Robots Exclusion Protocol prevents spiders from indexing designated pages, and certain words and phrases, and would enable you to control what the searchable footprint of UMSF is, e.g., no search for 'seti' would lead here.

For the damage already done you can also ask google to remove parts of a site from their cache using this remove your URL utility. By applying it to certain parts of the board it would effectively erase them from the web for people searching for them. This could be used to undo damage caused by off-topic threads providing search fodder for undesirables.

These are pretty standard techniques for hiding stuff on the web.

This post has been edited by paxdan: Apr 7 2006, 10:57 AM

[gpurcell]

I'd like to suggest that non-cosmology oriented space observatories, like Kepler and TPF, be included in scope of UMSF, as they are specifically designed to provide data on planetary bodies. Similarly, I think technology demonstration missions like the ST flights of the New Millenium Program also fit in the scope of UMSF.

My 0.02.

[climber]

Doug,

What about setting up a place dedicated to personal (or not?) stories we could share about Unmaned probes ? For exemple, I went twice in Pasadena, for Voyager 2 encounter with Neptune and then for Spirit landing. I personaly can share what I've seen, felt, etc... OK, I can put this under Planetary Society topic since the event I went to was organized by the PS, but, I feel that more people can (want ?) share their experience too, like Astro0 coming back for JPL-KSC recently. What I do like in Planetary exploration is all the humans stories that make it happen.
Thanks
Climber

[Bob Shaw]

What about setting up a place dedicated to personal (or not?) stories we could share about Unmaned probes ?

Yes. I agree!

I nominate 'Being There', 'Touching the Stars' or 'I was that soldier' as the thread title!

Bob Shaw

[djellison]

I think that would sit quite nicely in the Communtiy Chit Chat sub forum - by all means get lyrical therein

Doug