Reporter network idea (based on another members idea)

This is a reply I had made to the recent thread about the Ohio UFO sighting 'in progress' (found here - www.abovetopsecret.com...). Unfortunately in the time it took me to compose the reply, the thread had been closed. It is based on what another member has suggested in the thread, which I think is an interesting concept. If it has already been explored, then please just slap me with a fish and walk on by .

Because it sits exactly at the 4000 character maximum post limit, I will stick it in as a reply to this thread...


Ah, yes, and sorry...this is probably in the wrong place. I couldn't find a forum that seemed exactly appropriate (apart from the development ones at the bottom of the index which all seem to have been removed now). I'd be thankful if a mod could move it as appropriate . Thanks!

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Twilighthour]

Please excuse my interuption, despite lurking at ATS for at least a year and checking it several times daily I had not for a long time felt compelled to join and contribute. I did start a thread a while ago entitled "Pseudo Magnetism" about a phenomena I had (and continue to) experienced, although I do not recall the login credentials of that account.

Now...

Even if these sightings do turn out to be hoaxes, perhaps it would be an idea to try and extract something positive from them. I totally agree with the member earlier in the thread who suggested an 'on call' network of 'reporters' (?) who could check out reported sightings and bounce around what they see in writing / photos / videos.

It would at least help to validate the original source if several 'trusted reporters' were able to confirm the obervation of similar phenomena in a certain area (as reported by OP). Photo and video evidence would add further creditability.

My one apprehension, however, is that surely ATS should encompass such a system anyway? Like the reportage we have seen in this thread...unfortunately members cannot be confirmed as credible (they are new, lack of evidence, etc.) and their reportings are ripped to shreds by other members.

For such a system to be credible ATS members must be able to trust what is being reported, which begs the question 'How do you select reporters for said network?'. Do we simply use whoever is present at the geographical location of the event, or do we limit access to the network and open it to the wider ATS community for input only where required?

An open network would, of course, be more productive. The trade off is that the information thrown into the mix by potentially uncredible sources would overwhelm the credible information. The best solution might perhaps be to have two seperate discussion areas; one which can only be posted in by audited, trusted reporters but is open to be viewed by the entire ATS community, and one for the general ATS community to post in based on the information supplied by the audited reporters.

What the auditing process would entail, I don't know; however there is bound to be ways to check the intergrity of volunteers. Additionally the administrative team (and, any member, in fact) are able to check their posting history and evaluate their creditibility.

Regarding the live tracking on Google Maps, I am a web developer and have worked with the Google Maps API. I'm sure this is possible, and the company/organisation behind ATS (having developed their own forum system) is bound to have access to the knowledge and resources required to develop such a system. If they do not wish to get involved and this is to be a community lead project, I am happy to pitch in...

However, one might argue that if an event such as that described in this thread were to actually occur, there would not be a lack of photographs and videos posted by ATS'ers anyway. Therefore eliminating the purpose of this networks existence outside of validation purposes.

I don't know? But it's worth some consideration, at least? Sorry for lingering so far off topic, maybe the idea should have its own thread.

I'm sure there will be many willing volunteers (including myself) who own professional or high quality image capture equipment (still and video cameras). I for one recently purchased a £800 / $1600 dSLR which is considered 'semi professional', and doubtlessly there is no lack of forumers willing to train their eyes on the sky incase such an event were to occur.

One thing which I believe should be taken into account, however, is the personal beliefs of the volunteer and whether these are likely to influence their reportage. For this reason there should be a wide variety of volunteers with beliefs 'across the spectrum of scepticity'.


Sorry that this post diverts from the threads subject so much, and that my writing may be a little sloppy...

Hopefully there will be input on this idea from other members.

Cheers,
Twilight

I think this is a great idea and I am willing to participate. I am in NE Oklahoma, but we will need potential observers everywhere, I would think.

I am willing to provide my home email address, my IM, and even my cell phone number as long as they are available only to the established network and not to the general public.

I would suggest that the network consist only of people who have been willing and able to verify their identity in some manner.

The only way for this to be effective, in my mind, is to have observers scattered across the globe to have as much coverage as possible. I'm on the South Coast of England.

I would also be willing to give those details (mobile number could be handy as I'm often out with my camera). We still need a way to verify involved members, though, which could be a problem. What are we actually verifying, afterall? That they are actually people? That they do not have ill intent? That they are reliable and trustworthu? Or all of the above? Or more? They will be given access to oberver's personal data, afterall; every caution must be taken to keep said data secure.

I am still not sure of how we could choose who becomes an observer, though? Perhaps if a central team is formed, then we could audit people on a first come first served basis from pre defined regions. This could also be based on what equipment they have and how many hours they are home a day? However, in my opinion, caution must be taken to not become too intrusive.

One thing we have to ensure is that this stays as a collaboration between the whole comunity, and that volunteers don't go and start a 'rival' project because they were rejected. They must understand why they were rejected, which could be difficult to find the time to explain if the central team are innundated with applications.

All input is greatly appreciated....