Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hbelkins]

There’s also nothing wrong with typing a post and then deciding not to post it. Get it out of your system and then drop it.

I literally did just this about five minutes ago.

It's pretty obvious that this is "special legislation" and inspired by a handful of recent prolific posters.

It's about time.  I'm not opposed to any of these new restrictions.  People are expected to behave themselves in public.  They should also behave themselves here.  I am surprised recent behaviors were permitted to recur for as long as they did.  It's been getting a little uncomfortable around here.  Maybe this new "special legislation" will allow a little more breathing room.

 

We need a new rule that excessive negativity is not allowed.

No, fuck that. If people have concerns that are making them feel uncomfortable here, we need to know about them so they can be addressed. Forcing people to paper a smiling happy face over their concerns for the sake of being positive doesn't work at a job where people get paid to show up; it sure as hell wouldn't work on a site that's free where people can leave at any time with no consequences if they're not feeling it.

I'm more uncomfortable about the absence of posts here, not the presence of posts. Interpret that as you wish.

[kphoger]

To my eyes, this change is obviously a method by which to legitimize the moderation of shit-posting.

There have been several users lately who have spammed the forum with things like "and what's up with this?" or "could this have been a parclo?" or similar dross.  Then there are those of us (myself included) who occasionally like to channel our inner NE2 and post something like "wut" or "no".  Over the last few years, we forum members have seemed to grow more capable of self-moderating when the discussion starts to turn to politics or religion or whatever, more capable of just keeping our mouth shut to avoid a flame war and purple text.  But, when it comes to shit-posting, we either (a) are a user who doesn't even realize he's doing it or (b) can't control ourselves.  When it comes to up-votes and snarky one-word replies, no new content is generated but at least the damage is contained.  When it comes to posting a dozen dumb questions, though, everybody tastes the Spam.

While I support the moderation of things like excessive profanity, off-topic fighting, personal attacks, etc—things that make the forum an unwelcoming place—I do hesitate to support the moderation of content quality.  (Unlike HB, I see moderation of the forum w/r/t the former as being more akin to a store manager confronting rude customers, less like the government restricting citizen behavior.)  In general, the longer members hang out on the forum, the better their content gets.  But the problems I outlined above may not be self-correctable.

So where does this leave me?  In my opinion, this is an unfortunate but necessary turn of events.  I also trust that the moderators will not use a heavy hand, or else members who might be in jeopardy would already have been warned even without the new restrictions.

Edited to remove replies to deleted posts. -S.

[jakeroot]

My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted despite not having anything to do with the surrounding conversation (my fault, I suppose), so I want to repeat it as it has been helpful for me.

When I'm writing a post on AARoads, I generally follow the guidance of each post being more like an email: not necessarily as formal as a written letter, but not casual like a text message. There is a middle ground that should try and be achieved. Too long and people skip past it; too short (like three to eight words) and it becomes increasingly difficult to add meaningful conversation to the thread. Too bizarre and unrelated and people start to question your mental stability, and may begin to ignore you altogether.

There is a reason that schools often put caps on writing assignments: it is easy enough to get your point across over dozens of paragraphs, but it's much harder when you're limited. No one wants to read an essay, but maybe extrapolate a bit more: if you pose a question, maybe explain why you're asking it; if you disagree or agree with another post, explain your reasoning for doing so. Just try and add something that not only can be replied to, but is something that someone wants to reply to.

[kphoger]

My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted ...

Looks like mine too.  And yet the post below was protected in its entirety:

oh

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

[Roadgeekteen]

I disagree with the decision to delete all of those posts. Sure there was some silliness, but there was also some insightful comments that got lost in the shuffle.

[Max Rockatansky]

My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted ...

Looks like mine too.  And yet the post below was protected in its entirety:

oh

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

But he’s made substantial post contributions in the long ago past… 

[Roadgeekteen]

My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted ...

Looks like mine too.  And yet the post below was protected in its entirety:

oh

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

But he’s made substantial post contributions in the long ago past…

That has nothing to do about if the post should be deleted or not.

[Scott5114]

My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted despite not having anything to do with the surrounding conversation (my fault, I suppose)[...]

Whichever mod truncated the thread appears to have done so by picking a cutoff point and using the "split off this post and all posts after it" function rather than picking and choosing which posts to keep and which to remove.

My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted ...

Looks like mine too.  And yet the post below was protected in its entirety:

oh

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

The only reason I didn't delete that is because it's such a perfect example of what not to do that I could highlight it as an example of such. I suspect that NE2 intended it to be ironic humor.

For what it's worth, I've restored your post.

[Max Rockatansky]

My post about my thoughts of the rule and some quality guidance got deleted ...

Looks like mine too.  And yet the post below was protected in its entirety:

oh

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

But he’s made substantial post contributions in the long ago past…

That has nothing to do about if the post should be deleted or not.

I disagree.  Today had one of the first insightful and non-trollish posts I’ve seen NE2 do in a very long time.  It seems like all he’s inclined to do nowadays is just try to derail threads that annoy him.  I get the guy in the past has been a prolific contributor of historic information (I’ve even benefitted) but how long does someone like that get a free pass if we are talking about “meaningful” post content?

I don’t know, behind the scenes the watered down content on a lot of the boards annoys me also.  I do miss the days when there was a lot of people posting on the regular significant historic information and finds.  I get it that a lot of that stuff has moved to other media platforms (something I’ve taken advantage of also) but it also seems like most of the people who were involved with historic content just kind of gave up here.  If the Pacific Southwest board wasn’t holding in there with largely quality threads/posts I might have reconsidered my frequency on this forum awhile ago.  Considering this forum is how I met/connected with a lot of people in the road world I guess that I’m inclined to keep chugging along here for the foreseeable future.

Granted, it doesn’t help my case that I have a dull job which affords me way too much time to linger on road groups and forums.

[Scott5114]

I don’t know, behind the scenes the watered down content on a lot of the boards annoys me also.  I do miss the days when there was a lot of people posting on the regular significant historic information and finds.  I get it that a lot of that stuff has moved to other media platforms (something I’ve taken advantage of also) but it also seems like most of the people who were involved with historic content just kind of gave up here.  If the Pacific Southwest board wasn’t holding in there with largely quality threads/posts I might have reconsidered my frequency on this forum awhile ago.

And this is exactly the sort of re-evaluation we're trying to avoid by creating these rules. We don't want to lose users because someone is puttering through the thread listing posting one-and-a-half-sentence ill-considered hot takes without any consideration of how that affects the forum environment for everyone else.

I personally have gotten away from historic highways content simply because it takes a lot of research time and creative energy to do an adequate writeup, and I have other demands on that time and creative energy that give more satisfying feedback. The sad thing is that highway history is mostly only interesting to someone who is a roadgeek and has an interest in that specific area, and I suspect most of the Oklahoma roadgeeks already know the stuff I'd be posting about.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don’t know, behind the scenes the watered down content on a lot of the boards annoys me also.  I do miss the days when there was a lot of people posting on the regular significant historic information and finds.  I get it that a lot of that stuff has moved to other media platforms (something I’ve taken advantage of also) but it also seems like most of the people who were involved with historic content just kind of gave up here.  If the Pacific Southwest board wasn’t holding in there with largely quality threads/posts I might have reconsidered my frequency on this forum awhile ago.

And this is exactly the sort of re-evaluation we're trying to avoid by creating these rules. We don't want to lose users because someone is puttering through the thread listing posting one-and-a-half-sentence ill-considered hot takes without any consideration of how that affects the forum environment for everyone else.

I personally have gotten away from historic highways content simply because it takes a lot of research time and creative energy to do an adequate writeup, and I have other demands on that time and creative energy that give more satisfying feedback. The sad thing is that highway history is mostly only interesting to someone who is a roadgeek and has an interest in that specific area, and I suspect most of the Oklahoma roadgeeks already know the stuff I'd be posting about.

Don’t get me wrong, I do support measures such as the one taken in the topic of this thread.  For the posters who have been around the road hobby for a long time I think we have some investment/responsibility to demonstrate a good example for those who are new about quality content.  I make jokes often regarding popular road Facebook groups but they are just another example why “more” isn’t often “better.” 

Pertaining to historic content that more or less was an example of stuff I get motivated for.  There used to be other way higher content posts for other things too like road report reports, weird signage finds and even fictional highways.  I get it a lot of people well established in the hobby have combed over most of the major items long ago.  But that doesn’t mean there isn’t something new to find or a new angle worth exploring from a fresh perspective. 

I mean hell, I’m taken aback sometimes how little the AASHTO Database has been combed through.  That’s example of a massive gold mine of information which has somewhat recently appeared that isn’t even close to being fully explored.  That alone has hundreds of quality posts that are just sitting there.

[kphoger]

But he’s made substantial post contributions in the long ago past… 

And here I liked to think I had too... 

The only reason I didn't delete that is because it's such a perfect example of what not to do that I could highlight it as an example of such.

Oh, wow, I didn't expect that to be the answer!  That's awesome.

I suspect that NE2 intended it to be ironic humor.\

you think?

Whichever mod truncated the thread appears to have done so by picking a cutoff point and using the "split off this post and all posts after it" function rather than picking and choosing which posts to keep and which to remove.

For what it's worth, I've restored your post.

Oh, wow.  I didn't expect that either.  Thank you for doing that, sir.

I personally have gotten away from historic highways content simply because it takes a lot of research time and creative energy to do an adequate writeup, and I have other demands on that time and creative energy that give more satisfying feedback.

such as 

[Rothman]

By some strange coincidence, I find myself watching Chernobyl.

Like I said before, this thread should be locked.

[Roadgeekteen]

By some strange coincidence, I find myself watching Chernobyl.

Like I said before, this thread should be locked.

Did that comment add anything to the discussion? I think not.

[csw]

I think the mods should unlock a random thread each time someone requests a lock. I also think the mods should get around to creating that muffin baking board I suggested a while ago...

[NE2]

I mean hell, I’m taken aback sometimes how little the AASHTO Database has been combed through.  That’s example of a massive gold mine of information which has somewhat recently appeared that isn’t even close to being fully explored.  That alone has hundreds of quality posts that are just sitting there.

I started but got pissed off when I realized the first decade was missing for several L and M states.

[Alps]

FYI, a ton of posts got deleted when they started attacking a specific user (or two). I reviewed all of them and every single one either attacked or quoted an attack.

[J N Winkler]

I mean hell, I’m taken aback sometimes how little the AASHTO Database has been combed through.  That’s example of a massive gold mine of information which has somewhat recently appeared that isn’t even close to being fully explored.  That alone has hundreds of quality posts that are just sitting there.

It doesn't surprise me that it has received less attention than one might expect from the high degree of interest our community has shown in numbering changes over the years.  The rolling-out of new technologies, such as cloud-based hosting, has pitched us from scarcity into abundance over the past decade.  For the time being, we have too much material chasing too few eyeballs.

The central focus of my own interests has been pattern-accurate signing sheets, so I've paid close attention to which agencies produce them and put them online.  It took me about 15 years to get to 20,000 sheets from TxDOT.  Then in 2018, I discovered the Germans put signing sheets online too.  Three years later, I have over 15,000 from them and have had to revise my collecting criteria (for example, I no longer handle contracts where the signing is confined to rollplots that have to be zoomed in to read sign legends).  In the early 2010's, I was despairing about ever getting hold of KDOT projects from approximately 1998 to 2008 that had pattern-accurate signing sheets.  In 2018, we learned about the availability of KDOT vault files, and it is only now that I am looking to work with them in detail.

I think the next step will be to use AI to work with this material, once suitable tools leave the enterprise space.  We already use computer vision with neural-net learning to find cancer tumors in MRIs, and identifying pattern-accurate signing sheets is a classic use case for it.  I can easily see language processing tools being used to work with the AASHTO database and help draw conclusions about the histories of particular routes using primary-source material that cuts across the existing categories (for example, "What we did there with Route B is a useful precedent for what the state DOT wants to do with Route A").

[Mapmikey]

I mean hell, I’m taken aback sometimes how little the AASHTO Database has been combed through.  That’s example of a massive gold mine of information which has somewhat recently appeared that isn’t even close to being fully explored.  That alone has hundreds of quality posts that are just sitting there.

It doesn't surprise me that it has received less attention than one might expect from the high degree of interest our community has shown in numbering changes over the years.  The rolling-out of new technologies, such as cloud-based hosting, has pitched us from scarcity into abundance over the past decade.  For the time being, we have too much material chasing too few eyeballs.

The central focus of my own interests has been pattern-accurate signing sheets, so I've paid close attention to which agencies produce them and put them online.  It took me about 15 years to get to 20,000 sheets from TxDOT.  Then in 2018, I discovered the Germans put signing sheets online too.  Three years later, I have over 15,000 from them and have had to revise my collecting criteria (for example, I no longer handle contracts where the signing is confined to rollplots that have to be zoomed in to read sign legends).  In the early 2010's, I was despairing about ever getting hold of KDOT projects from approximately 1998 to 2008 that had pattern-accurate signing sheets.  In 2018, we learned about the availability of KDOT vault files, and it is only now that I am looking to work with them in detail.

I think the next step will be to use AI to work with this material, once suitable tools leave the enterprise space.  We already use computer vision with neural-net learning to find cancer tumors in MRIs, and identifying pattern-accurate signing sheets is a classic use case for it.  I can easily see language processing tools being used to work with the AASHTO database and help draw conclusions about the histories of particular routes using primary-source material that cuts across the existing categories (for example, "What we did there with Route B is a useful precedent for what the state DOT wants to do with Route A").

I didn't know people wanted to keep seeing relatively small but unknown discoveries.  For instance the other day I found a document that requested US 42 extend to Memphis in the 1930s.  No documentation with the outcome (or in this instance why it didn't happen, though US 79 uses a lot of what was proposed)

[Scott5114]

FYI, a ton of posts got deleted when they started attacking a specific user (or two). I reviewed all of them and every single one either attacked or quoted an attack.

The proper response to this, which I cannot believe has to be explicitly pointed out, is not to resume attacking specific users. Next person who does that in this thread gets a 70-point warning.

[kphoger]

I started but got pissed off when I realized the first decade was missing for several L and M states.

I didn't know people wanted to keep seeing relatively small but unknown discoveries.  For instance the other day I found a document that requested US 42 extend to Memphis in the 1930s.  No documentation with the outcome (or in this instance why it didn't happen, though US 79 uses a lot of what was proposed)

That sort of "relatively small" discovery is exactly what was generating new interest a few months ago.  I say, keep 'em coming!

[NE2]

Other_NY_1933_6_US and Other_NY_1934__: AASHO proposed extending US 4 to Niagara via Northville-Lake Pleasant-Rome-Fulton-Rochester. NY said hell no, there's no good route between Fort Ann and Northville, and Northville to Poland kind of sucks too. NY countered with a route only west of US 11 (via Oswego instead of Fulton), and AASHO concurred.
AASHO also proposed extending US 220 or 309 via Ithaca and Auburn to Oswego.

[Max Rockatansky]

I mean hell, I’m taken aback sometimes how little the AASHTO Database has been combed through.  That’s example of a massive gold mine of information which has somewhat recently appeared that isn’t even close to being fully explored.  That alone has hundreds of quality posts that are just sitting there.

It doesn't surprise me that it has received less attention than one might expect from the high degree of interest our community has shown in numbering changes over the years.  The rolling-out of new technologies, such as cloud-based hosting, has pitched us from scarcity into abundance over the past decade.  For the time being, we have too much material chasing too few eyeballs.

The central focus of my own interests has been pattern-accurate signing sheets, so I've paid close attention to which agencies produce them and put them online.  It took me about 15 years to get to 20,000 sheets from TxDOT.  Then in 2018, I discovered the Germans put signing sheets online too.  Three years later, I have over 15,000 from them and have had to revise my collecting criteria (for example, I no longer handle contracts where the signing is confined to rollplots that have to be zoomed in to read sign legends).  In the early 2010's, I was despairing about ever getting hold of KDOT projects from approximately 1998 to 2008 that had pattern-accurate signing sheets.  In 2018, we learned about the availability of KDOT vault files, and it is only now that I am looking to work with them in detail.

I think the next step will be to use AI to work with this material, once suitable tools leave the enterprise space.  We already use computer vision with neural-net learning to find cancer tumors in MRIs, and identifying pattern-accurate signing sheets is a classic use case for it.  I can easily see language processing tools being used to work with the AASHTO database and help draw conclusions about the histories of particular routes using primary-source material that cuts across the existing categories (for example, "What we did there with Route B is a useful precedent for what the state DOT wants to do with Route A").

Yes, there has been a crap load of older media that has popped up alongside the AASHTO Database.  For me the California Highways & Public Works (I received a recent donation of almost every physical volume) has been what I've really been pouring into as of late as it has literally everything I need to finish seriously looking into at least 90% of older highway alignments in California.  That said, I posted some major stuff from the AASHTO on Gribblenation and it hardly registers any attention.  The one that really got me was the exchanges between the AASHO and the Division of Highways which made it clear that US 66 was signed to Santa Monica years before it was officially extended there.  I keep finding things are big like that but even a lot of the smaller items historically can be nonetheless interesting.

[SkyPesos]

Seems like a ton of posts got deleted here, and we’re back a page…

Also, is it a coincidence that tolbs17 haven’t logged on the forum since this thread was posted? Considering he’s one of the few names that I had in mind reading it.

[Roadgeekteen]

Seems like a ton of posts got deleted here…

Also, is it a coincidence that tolbs17 haven’t logged on the forum since this thread was posted. Considering he’s one of the few names that I had in mind reading it.

He told me that he's quitting.