Some introspection of WUWT

“WUWT and it’s place in the climate debate”. Anthony, please be aware that the possessive “its” has no apostrophe. Nor does “his” “hers” “yours” or “theirs”. Yours (!), simon abingdon.
REPLY: I make this mistake regularly, I’ll make it in the future. It happens when I write and get distracted, as often happens when I write from home with children about. OTOH, I have to give something for the “pirates of pendant” to get excited about. – Anthony

You have a lot of content here. Some of it is in the comments, but there is way too much for me to read through.
Personally, I would like a way to distinguish the political comments from the scientifically oriented. I think both are valuable, but sometimes I wish I could just filter out the political ones. Seeing another posting saying “That’s outrageous” doesn’t really further my understanding of the issue, since I have already seen that message many times here.

I wish you all the best Anthony, history will smile upon you.
but you are a means to an end. not the end. Putting the scientific process back in its proper place is the end.
‘remember ceasar thou art mortal’
‘remember ceasar thou art mortal’
‘remember ceasar thou art mortal’
🙂
EO

The new reference pages are a bit busy. They take longer to load and create some major slow downs with all the animation firing off at once.
I like the guest posts though I rarely agree with the content. They are interesting because of the comments they generate.
Your main page is well thought out. It is easy to read and loads reasonably quickly.
The diverse content is a plus, I would not change a thing.

I like the tollerence you have to desenting views. If we don’t listen to everyone how can we have an honest discussion

The only suggestion I have to make this web site better is to move the “Recent Posts” section closer to the top, so I don’t have to scroll down so much each of the 100 times a day I visit!

First I appreciate this website and the efforts you put into it. I ran a website for 10 years after my daughter was diagnosed with a rare bone disease in 97. I burnt out after 7 years of daily working with new members (2500+ members from 60+ countries). Fortunately the web site spun into a non profit organization, and i wound the site down. I pray that you, Anthony, do not burn out. Maybe take certain days off where you dont post.
With that said, the only comments I might add is I would like to see more CAGW supported guest authors. A more balanced discussion. Less troll bouncing. Assuming the debate can be constructive and not destructive.
I would also like to have one page that covers WUWT position on the many aspects of the CAGW, so that newbies can see where your position is at. Kind of a FAQ, with simple and concise answers along with applicable links to articles on WUWT.
With great respect,
HOBO
REPLY: I’ve always wanted to earn the respect of a hobo, now that I have it, my life is complete 😉 Thanks, Anthony

I like you just the way you are.

WUWT is my portal to the climate science controversies. WUWT is head and shoulders above all other websites that might serve as such a portal. The proof of that is the recent focus on Steig’s work on O’Donnell’s article. The commentary on that matter was excellent as always. Overall, WUWT should receive at least a Pulitzer Prize for that effort.
WUWT is not only a breath of fresh air, it is a day surfing at Sebastian Inlet. Aside from the serious matters, it is fabulous entertainment. Features such as the Sea Ice Page put competitors to shame, especially when Anthony chooses and posts photos. It goes without saying that Anthony is a genius of a blogger and we are all indebted to him.
On the negative side, predictable trolls should be banned and, if necessary, banned again and again and again. Trolls can make a website unusable. That has happened to The Guardian sites, to Real Climate, and to many others. Trolls could overwhelm this website and that would be a tragedy. It is really a pain in the behind when several commenters have spent hours explaining some point P and then along come five trolls who do nothing but blather and assert “not P.” They are sent here to do that, so that Warmista sites can publish that their position is represented at WUWT. They should not be permitted to get away with it.
God Bless Anthony and all his, especially including WUWT.

This is a regular source of information for me. I like the openness and balance. My only recommendation (and it’s a strong one) would be: “If it ain’t broke…”

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it? 🙂

I like the site a lot. I trust it to give facts, and alow comments. Facts, as we have learned, are seldom so easily interpreted that they can be presented unfiltered. Likewise, since they need interpretations, there is a subjectivity to them. I thus expect the page to allow different views to present their information, and then the comments to discuss it. I believe this is happening, and the more I believe all sides get a fair chance to present their information, the more I trust what I read on the page.
I have seen a number of very good ways of making “hard to grasp” subjects presentable, which is a major reason I get here frequently. Often there are in depth articles as well. I read some of them through, others I only scan, but it contribute to the feeling there is knowledge collected on the page, creating a trust in the information.
— Mats —

Best science blog on the web. Pity we are always dominated by AGW, but that’s the way of the world at present. However, every so often you give us something different and challenging, which makes coming here even more enjoyable.
The trolls are a nuisance, but the great strength of this blog is tollerance of all views, long may it continue. Trolls by their nature have short attention spans, and soon get tired when their brains are challenged, so don’t change anything. This site has grown and matured, and I have visited daily since I first read about your experiments with different paints on the Stevenson Screens. Did you ever come to any conclusions?

I’m having a hard time defining what I like most about WUWT. In no particular order, I’d say:-
Reference pages – just amazing.
Guest posts, particularly the sciency ones, including the ones from people on the other side of the divide.
Anything by Willis and Josh. They’re always good for morale.
Readers comments and links, particularly the sciency ones.
The moderation policy is peerless, probably the best in the blogosphere. Thank you, guys.
About the only gripe I would have is the sheer amount of time it takes to get through all the posts and comments. If I miss a day, I’m really struggling to keep up.
I’m having an equally hard time thinking about things that would improve on what you already have.
Keep your sense of humour and don’t burn out would probably be the most important one.
Possibly a vulcanology reference page.
Keep mixing it up with sciency articles that are not necessarily solely about climate or weather.
Keep extending invites to scientists from the other side, and articles from skeptics who might not be full time scientists.

Having comments numbered is a good idea.
Otherwise – why change a winning blog!
I haven’t found a better site for learning, not just from the guest posts but also from the comments. Sometimes it feels like having a private lecture at the best university there is.
The spread of information is excellent, and having a Josh interleaved here and there is good fun.
The reference pages are outstanding. The whole blog is easy to read.
The moderators should be given prizes – their comments on what the current trolls are producing never fail to make me grin.
So for the time being – no need to fiddle with the best science blog.
Thanks, Anthony and mods – and commenters!

Format and style: I would like to see comments threaded in a staggered format that allows one to follow some threads, and to skip others.
Content: I would like to see a separate forum for chatting about more general, off-topic matters. This would also make the WUWT site much more active and popular. To unburden moderators, you could limit the membership in this forum to those who participated by commenting for some time, and are thus “vetted” to behave properly.
Moderation: seems to be much more reasonable and fair than on most other sites.
Guest authors: some are very good, especially Mr. Eschenbach, who demonstrates remarkably clear thinking and writing skills.
How do you most use WUWT? I read articles and comments, how else? I would never use facebook, tweet, linkedin, or whatever they call those sites that give their participants an artificial sensation of doing something or being part of something, whereas, in reality, they waste their time and are as lonely as ever.
What could we do better? Not being a climatologist, as I mentioned already, I would like very much to see comments in a threaded, staggered format that would allow me to participate in a discussion of social and cultural tendencies affiliated with the green hoax but to skip boring skirmishes between vain people most interested in who is better qualified to understand correctly some particular feature of atmospheric circulation or solar magnetic activity. I would be more than happy, for example, to skip forever all caustic, self-aggrandizing (and often scientifically dubious) expostulations posted by Dr. Leif Svalgaard.

MikeW says:
February 20, 2011 at 10:28 am said in part …
“I have a special OT note to add here: The US Govt is putting out a contract for development of Software to manage “Fake People” on social media websites to help promote their ‘message’. This could take the promulgation of Global Warming ‘information’ to new levels.
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/02/19/us-government-software-creates-fake-people-on-social-networks-to-promote-propaganda/#comment-61651”
____________________________________________________________
Darn, you mean a few of us will have to gear up our spambots ?
Anthony,
Just keep as it is.

I look at WUWT as one of the insider looks at the world of science to get the real deal that CNN or FOX may glaze over in reports. I only have background of traditional college with majors in psychology and art. In spite of that I have kept up with weather all my life. Now my teenage daughter is using this site as a source of current events in the fields of science in two classes. They are required to discuss verbally in class and on paper what is really happening out there. And yes, she’s getting A’s doing this. So while you have kids running around you while writing, you have kids on the other end of the web reading and discussing those issues. Keep this up but give more detail for the more of us who don’t have the physics background!

If it’s not too much to ask, how about adding some puppy videos? Everyone likes puppies!
REPLY: sure, here ya go, I feel like the cat some days:

Anthony. Great web blog but more importantly a great forum for free exchange of scientific ideas/information. After four years I am so used to the format that any change would throw me off. The guest authors and several commentators are extremely valuable. The moderation is about right. Sometimes it seems heavy-handed but some people are just uncivil. I have increasingly less time (along with everyone else) and I use WUWT for keeping up with the recent scientific announcements instead of trying to skim all the other blogs/journals. I skim over the “IPCC/Team’s/Administration’s” “consensus” announcements as their 30-year old broken record is stuck in early 1980’s computer models.

Anthony – I have a look at your site on a daily basis. I am interested in both the science and the politics; my aim is to educate myself and keep abreast of new developments.
Your format and style (e.g. choice of font) are excellent, the blog is one of the easiest to load and read.
The style of moderation is just right, and is a key to your success.
I would suggest a distinction (e.g. in headers) between 3 types of topic: (a) science, (b) politics and (c) mixed science and politics (I will even guess that you will have about 1/3 of each).
Links are important: sometimes the best ones are in readers’ comments.
You are right to review things. Your ability to delegate is perhaps the single most important thing as the site continues to grow. I trust we will hear more reports of quality family time spent away from the blog.
All the best.

I wouldn’t change much, except that I like the idea of culling or nesting comments that merely recycle the “foaming-at-mouth” sentiment without supporting facts or helpful commentary.
The sheer number of long-form articles, items, topics and guest writers can get daunting. Perhaps a top-level display could have the current day’s entries as they are now (a couple of paras with “continue reading”), and previous days’ entries listed under their date of posting and with a simple linked title?
I know if I miss a few days here, I tend to scan faster than I would prefer, and a set of titles would make it easier for me to cherry-pick items of interest.
I very much appreciate the practice here of engaging proponents of AGW; it’s a healthy way to avoid becoming yet another cranky echo chamber.
I also find a differentiator of this site is that it contains not just criticism of the scientific establishment of climate change and analyses of its arguably shoddy premises, but also puts forth minority viewpoints that (like solar cycles) concur that some climate change may be happening, but that humans might have less to do with it than the “fear mongers” assert.
To my mind, this is at the heart of academic freedom: the provision of a forum in which any number of ideas can contend. Consider the life cycle of the liver fluke: it took ages to establish all the steps in that little nasty’s survival, and I expect that a true understanding (and a better reckoning) of climate change science will have to allow for far more factors than “turn off your car, evil Gaia rapist!”
Lastly, it’s not just enough to say “these bastards are corrupt deceivers”. You have to establish a counter-proposal that makes better sense than the received wisdom. WUWT does that, which is why I like it here.

Anthony:
I sent you a message via your contact page. Hope it doesn’t get skipped because I used that form.
Good luck.

I can’t find data just pictures. For example I want sunspot number data, but I don’t think it is available via WUWT. So maybe as well as ‘references’ and ‘resources’ you could add ‘data’?

More mockery and snark for the Alarmists! Not enough disdain and contempt being shown towards them. More Stone Cold Salute!

Couldn’t respectfully disagree more with Joe Dunfee above, who thinks that general and political comments should be isolated from ‘scientific’ comments.
Do that and you risk putting both in their individual ghettos, you also diminish your very important educational role, whereby non scientists still read and feel able to comment on scientific matters.
Scientists tend to be specialists (part of the reason we’re in this mess in the first place) but your general readers have a lot of wisdom and common sense spread across a wide range of disciplines…history for example is a fierce tool in debunking AGW…let us ordinary folk have our say.
What I think might help is an instant list of the authoratitive sources we use on this site…NASA, University of Illinois, Jaxa etc etc…because one of the favourite methods used to attack the sceptical position, it to claim that we are all gullible cranks and the science we use to rebutt AGW is ‘made up’, (now that’s ironic!)
Evolution is the way…because yes most of us do believe in that.
Most importantly don’t do anything too fast or too radical

Hi Anthony and co!
One point: “Content: too much/too little/too narrow/too broad?” and the point about guest authors:
I believe it must be quite a challenge to make all happy. One commenter says that there is “too much”.
I understand him so far that I cantno longer read all articles, and only fractions of the valuable comments i can check out.
BUT: The thing is, the relevanse of the articles is in my view at least at good as “in the old days”. Its as if there is simply more and more relevant stories. This could indicate to some degree, perhaps, that the sceptics word is spreading out, dominoes are falling, more and more stories evolving.
At the same time, “guest post” authors like me that cannot deliver full PHD´s in private evening hours has perhaps slightly smaller place in the debate simply because more and more professional institutions (like the BEST proj) are interacting, taking part in the debate.
WUWT certainly has had a charm and a force using this broad variety of guest post authors of the “private” type, perhaps even a kind of articles that has contibruted to WUWT rather well, but perhaps time is changing things – partly simply because “we are winning” as sceptics 🙂
I think there will still pop “private-guest-author” articles up at WUWT, but perhaps not as often as ealier. I hope i wont end all together since it is really a charm – in my view.
When the climate debate ends, what a pleasure to go back and study astronomy and origin of life and and and…!
K.R. Frank

Content: too little!!!
Content: not enough news, I would like to see WUWT get more hits. So an occasional important news story would be good, regardless if it is related to science or not.
Moderation: Too troll tolerant. We already know what they are going to say. They are basically Bots. Everyone can easily find what a troll is going to say just about anywhere in the media. Why do we have to see it here again? (A smidge is ok though.)
Guest authors: EXCELLENT!! (That choice was not among good/bad/ugly?) I wish there were more opinion pieces too, besides guest science works. I am certain Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Anthony Watts, Ross McKitrick, Robert Balling, Nir Shaviv, and so on, have good things to say. And I think readers would like to hear those opinions, thoughts, and feelings (though not too heavy on politics). Opinion pieces may be a good outlet for you fellows to have too.
What could we do better? Have a quick snippers for OT comments followed by a reply that said, politely, “Please post that in Tips and Notes. Thank you.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
One suggestion I have that would help reduce the work load is to not have a comment thread after every post. If you closed comments on some select posts there would be less commenting to keep track of, but people would still have a post to read. It appears that from the number of hits WUWT gets most people do not comment but come to see the latest. So it doesn’t seem you’d lose hits from having comments closed on some posts.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Here’s an example of what I mean by opinion piece, which I would like to see more of:

One of the best science blogs on the web, but I do have one suggestion which will make it bettter – in my humle opinions of course.
I think the blog should have more guest posts with alternative views on global warming. That do not mean that I want any warmist “the end is nigh” stuff here – they have enough other places to go.
What I do miss however, is seroius analyses from people who can provide good analyses and insight without the polarised view we often see in the climate debate. In other words, I miss more stuff from the ‘Lukewarmers’ like Pielke and Engelbeen.

Anthony,
I can’t think of much that needs to be changed. Your moderation is the BEST I’ve seen. The site is sufficiently troll tolerant and you have the best behaved trolls out there (compare and contrast to James Delingpole’s blog at the DT). American Thinker is essentially a troll free zone and they’re hyper-moderated. I’ve had entire comments deleted for no apparent reason. They were on topic, polite, profanity free and completely consistent with their posted comments rules. But if a comment happens to rankle a particular moderator for some unknown reason it simply disappears. Since their great troll purge a year or two ago their comments have become rather dull, just the bleating of the regulars in an echo chamber…but their articles are still VERY good. The comments here at WUWT are one of the site’s best features. It might be useful to have the comments numbered but it’s really no big deal that they’re not.
I certainly can’t suggest any change in content, format or layout. I thoroughly enjoy your guest authors. I use WUWT for everything you listed except bird cages. But, sorry…I’m a twitterphobe.
Dave

One last example of opinion piece

I own a data center with a number of web servers. On many web sites I host, I provide a visible link to WUWT where appropriate. When not appropriate for the site content to show a link, I embed an invisible link to WUWT (in an odd place on the page with font colors the same as the background color) which, while invisible to the eye, still gets picked up by web bots. I realize that others may not have the latitude I do so I offer this as a suggestion to those who do. At least most people can add a visible or invisible link to WUWT on their social networking pages.
As for format and content, WUWT is the only site I read on a daily basis. Some times there’s too much to read but I pick and choose what interests me and I like that. Most of the time I just do a cursory look at the political news articles and prefer to read the more science based ones. But that’s just me. I understand and appreciate that everyone comes here to read what interests them. So in those regards, I wouldn’t recommend changing content.
The e-mail notification of new posts is excellent. I subscribe to it. When a topic is posted that I have a high interest in, I check it out as soon as my work flow permits. It’s nice being able to sit down to my e-mail in the evenings and see what’s up at Watts Up With That.
The level of moderation seems a good balance. I particularly enjoy reading opposing views being worked out in comments. I learn a lot from the exchanges plus realizing that opposing views are encouraged at WUWT give me confidence that discussion here is fair and open.
My largest concern is that with as much effort you put into WUWT, you may be setting yourself up for burn out. I would prefer that you (and WUWT moderators) balance your time in a way to survive for the long haul. It wouldn’t disappoint me if you reduced the number of postings per week, perhaps create an “Open Thread” more frequently, so you can take a little more time for R&R.

Anthony these are just my comments – not for pages
Some topics that I’d like input on:
Format and style: too busy or easy to read and use?
Good as is – easy to follow
Content: too much/too little/too narrow/too broad?
Suits me as is – plenty to read – what I would expect here.
Content: too much news/not enough news?
Ditto as above
Moderation: too heavy/too light? Too troll tolerant/not tolerant enough?
Excellent and witty
Features: (no I can’t make comment preview work, see this) what would you like to see?
Guest authors: good/bad/ugly?
I like the guests – ‘specially Willis!
Ideas for regular weekly features
How do you most use WUWT? Reference, portal, news, commentary, bird cages?
Reference. Understanding – occasionally venting anger!
What could we do better?
Can’t say off top of my head – it’s great as is – but always things have to be improved – just can provide a suggestion here.
At the same time, I’d like to mention that a part of WUWT’s success is owed to linkages…and I’ve noticed many readers not taking advantage of the ability to spread the word. It would be enormously helpful if you would use other blogs, Twitter, and Facebook to announce WUWT posts of interest. Some web ranking services now figure these in. Even if you don’t retweet, simply signing up as a Twitter follower improves WUWT’s ranking in some venues.
Yeah the linkages are great – but sometimes get led too far astray!
For example, the Wikio Sciences blog rating we have in the upper right sidebar depends on retweets to some degree, they write in FAQs:
The position of a blog in the Wikio ranking depends on the number and weight of the incoming links from other blogs. Our algorithm accords a greater value to links from blogs placed higher up in the ranking.
A blog linking another blog is only counted once a month i.e. if blog A links to blog B 10 times in a given month, it is only counted as having linked to that blog once that month. The weight of any link decreases over time. Also, if a blog always links to the same blog, the weight of these links is decreased.
Only links found in RSS feeds are counted. Blogrolls are not taken into account.
In December 2010, retweets were added as an additional factor to the ranking algorithm. For each twitter account, only one backlink per blog is taken into account each month.
So, links to WUWT are important, retweets are important. If you haven’t joined up with Twitter and Facebook, I understand, it took me awhile to overcome some of my personal objections to this form of social networking, but once I did, I never looked back.
I don’t do twitter – somehow I can’t bring myself to that
Thanks for your consideration – Anthony
Just do what you do so well is all I can say and thanks
Cheers
Douglas

You are a principle part of my daily news gathering, have been for years. You reflect the contradiction of the AGW alarmist claims of deniers being baseless, half-cocked wing-nuts. The moderation is the most consistent in the industry. The fact that you don’t pander to moronic hyperbole from either side of the climate debate is a sign of character and high purpose rarely seen in any media format, least of all the internet.
You have done a remarkable job of bringing the mysteries of science down to a level that can be understood and repeated confidently by laymen and climate scientists alike. I (not a scientist myself) have been involved in the AGW debate for about 5 years now both in private and public forums. Largely due to the information I have received from you and Steve McIntire, I have held my own in rooms filled with PhDs. Not surprisingly, the most difficult part is dealing with ill-informed skeptics that degrade the credibility of the debate. I do my best to keep focused on the legitimate questions you and Steve have raised and the strong case you many contributors have made in their studies and research.
The battle is being won (with no lack of support from the heavens these past two winters and a world economy that opens eyes to fraud, waste, and abuse). I learned an axiom during my career in quality assurance management: What should I do that I don’t do now? What should I not do that I do now? I can find no answer to these questions, concerning WUWT. I can say with certainty that what you have done has been remarkably successful and, without your input, its hard to conceive the decline in AGW alarmism so welcome and evident in the world today.

When deciding to change anything it is good to know why. Usually it is forced by a change of objectives, sometimes, as part of a war, it is good to know where you think the weaknesses may lay and sometimes it is possible that you may wish to change the entire strategy of your work.
Ask yourselves the questions; are you basically happy with your work. Has it fulfilled your original ambitions and therefore you wish to change tack entirely? What are you KEY objectives for the future? Is it that you are less concerned about quality and more focused, now, on quantity? You started out as a ‘journal’, do you now wish to become a more serious scientific site? You may have started with a focus on America but now find that your are worldwide, do you want to change your focus again?
Now you can begin to focus on formats, content, moderation, etc. You have to go through the earlier questions before starting on the pretty things or you may mess up completely.

I can tell you why I started reading WUWT. I had difficulty following a mathematical argument in Climate Audit. It had a reference to WUWT. You presented the same material as Climate Audit in a way I could understand it. Willis also has the ability to explain complex matters simply.

I check in a couple of times a day for news. I most enjoy the postings about science related topics, especially climate and climate cycles (of course), technology, solar updates and research, ocean influences, space, alternative energy strategies, etc.
I don’t care for nested threads; I have a tendency to get lost…
I usually like most of your chosen improvements, but that said, as many others have advised: Don’t fix what isn’t broken.
For many years, WUWT has been my favorite blog. It’s got good black on white contrast for middle-aged eyes, the article headings and first couple paragraphs usually tell me if I want to read on, the guest posters are quite interesting, and the generally intelligent (and often hilarious) mix of comments is always entertaining.
Thanks to all of you who make it possible,
Kate

Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Everything here is good.

Could you add a link in the right column directly to the Bore Hole at RC?
That is the bit over there that is worth reading, IMO.

Anthony,
a separate reference page for geeks like myself would be nice. There would be no fancy images on that one, just links to publicly available climate databases along with a brief description of their content (and format if necessary – in some cases it is not very well documented on the site itself).
For example at the CRU site we have both CRUTEM3 (land air temperature anomalies) and HadSST2 (sea surface temperature anomalies). If the data are given, it is very easy to write small quick-and-dirty scripts for those who know how just to check a claim. In this case it turns out during the last four decades CRU land temperatures increased much faster than sea surface temperatures. The difference in trends is about 1°C/century.
Difference of Land and Sea Surface Anomaly
I do not think it is real, as land and ocean temperatures should fluctuate around the same equilibrium temperature with a common trend in the long run. Heat capacity of air and land surface is much smaller than that of oceans, so both common sense and simple physics tell us it should be so. Therefore what we see here must be temporal UHI effect on CRUTEM3 I guess (or soot on snow in higher latitudes). Of course it could and should be cross-checked with other databases, but you already see my point.
It can be rather time consuming to look up the data needed for such small projects in each case, so a reference page like that would really be handy. There are a lot of guys out there who are knowledgeable in different fields (e.g. programming, physics, math or statistics). Folks like that could do useful work as citizen scientists, including those who are not dedicated climate scientists themselves. We may even get some interesting guest posts as a result, who knows?
Readers (including myself) could help to set up such a page.
While we are at it, to be able to post images in comments would be nice (it is possible with videos). Is it a feature of WordPress that prevents it?
Otherwise all is well, keep up the good work.
P.

Probably not “do-able”. I’d like an easy “Print post” option as I have difficulty reading long posts on screen
Moderation. One moderator appears a little heavy handed on “bad” language.
Apart from that; keep it as is.
DaveE.

* Tags: they are placed too low. After reading the lead, I already know what the article is about, so they carry no new information. Place them just below the headline, near author and date information, like this:
Posted on February 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts in Announcements, WUWT.
or
Anthony Watts on February 20, 2011
Tags: Announcements, WUWT.
(author is usually more importand than date)

It’s fine the way it is. Ecclectic and fleet of foot.

OK, I’ll try.
“Format and style: too busy or easy to read and use?”
Works for me. And since I’m getting on, I appreciate the large type.
“Content: too much/too little/too narrow/too broad?”
Given the critical importance of the AGW story at this time, I think your content is right on. Someday I would love to see a broader range of topics, particularly more on my favorite subject, the pseudoscience of Conservation Biology. While the world is focused on the junk IPCC climate ‘science’ that is at least as bad, and it does have significant implications for people in the West particularly and for everyone who lives outside a city.
“Content: too much news/not enough news?”
There are other sites for that. I think you have a good balance now… just the most relevant ‘news’ seems to get directly here, and then the comments expand that.
“Moderation: too heavy/too light? Too troll tolerant/not tolerant enough?”
First, I don’t even like the word “troll,” or any simplistic label that promotes us-them groupthink. That said, please keep it as “troll tolerant” as possible. To do otherwise puts you in the same league as RealClimate, and open to the kind of bias accusations which that site so richly deserves. Moreover, plain stupid comments can be ignored while others can start great debates and force everyone to look or think harder. Any AGW advocate who does post here has their views fully challenged and, in the best cases, we all learn from those exchanges.
“Features: (no I can’t make comment preview work, see this) what would you like to see?”
Well, sorry then, when some of my comments come out as gibberish 😉
“Guest authors: good/bad/ugly?” Very, very good. You have some truly outstanding contributors, with more coming I expect.
“Ideas for regular weekly features”
Hmmm. Since you already cover things as they happen, I’m stumped.
“How do you most use WUWT? Reference, portal, news, commentary, bird cages?”
I learn here constantly and use links from WUWT so often in other blogs that people complain about it.
“What could we do better?”
I really don’t know. What I like the best about your site is the combination of the fascinating articles and the many highly informed comments which effectively ‘peer review’ them.
If you could arrange a UN-sponsored conference for all WUWT contributors and readers in Bali next winter that would be nice.

Replying using the categories listed above:
Format and style: I don’t have any problems with the layout and such.
Content: Again, no problems. Whilst it seems WUWT has focused more on climate change after a more varied start, there’s still a fair few non-AGW posts for those interested.
Content (enough / not enough news?): I’d rather too much than too little.
Moderation: No issues with the mod team here.
Features: Again, no issues.
Guest authors: Generally good. What I will say (not just to the guest posters but in general) is that I think arguments against AGW are more effective at persuading people from the pro-AGW camp (not to mention undecided people) if they’re written in a more polite & adult manner.
Ideas for regular weekly features: Hmm, not sure if I can think of much here TBH.
How do you most use WUWT? Reference, portal, news, commentary, bird cages? News, reference & commentary.
I think that sums up most of my thoughts re the site.
TL;DR version: Seems to be doing fine as-is really.

I come here daily because it is very content rich – this is an amazing blog.
I also respect the fact that alternate points of view are included.
Guest posts have been growing recently in the blogosphere and I think you have done a great job recruiting folks. I find myself in agreement with most and I would have less respect for the blog if I agreed with all.
I will try to improve my twitter activity.
For myself, it is very hard to evaluate the moderators since I do not know what was snipped. You will have to oversee this, bearing in mind I would hope, that limits to power are almost always a good thing, and unlimited power almost always bad.

Hi Anthony, just keep things as they are!

I’d like to say that I find your blog informative and well balanced in what you publish through it. I know the Pro-AGW lobby feel otherwise, but they will not publish any of the counter argument or science. Some posts can be difficult to digest all in one hit, but on the whole I think you provide an extremely useful and informative service here.
And, in future, when I link, I’ll use the RSS feed …

WUWT is just fine the way it is – don’t change a thing .

The format is fine, dont fix until broken.
Id like to ses more warmists comments, I hope they dont find the moderation as inpenetrable as we sceptics do their sites, realclimate etc.
Its funny, in sweden we have a warmist blogg kalled “uppsalainitiativet” which is religiously devoted to defame anyone sceptic of human global warming.
http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/
I have on many occasions entered polite comments, on topic, pointing out fallacies i their argument, contradictions, or alternative views, not attacking anyone etc and time after time the comments fail to get through.
–
So I made some nonsense comments , just two or three, in another alias like “He he, you sure shut that denier up, very nice….etc” stupid rude comments but supposedly from a warmist side, and they made it through the moderation.
I have noticed they share this heavy moderation with some extremist socialist organizations, to be fair, the socialist sites usually ban you If you critizise ever so slightly.
–
My point being that debate is more fun and more healthy when opposing views interact, groupthink is never good, neither secterianism.
WUWT is doing fine I think, keep up the good work an I will keep posting links.

Hi Anthony,
I would like to second a suggestion by Alexander Feht
“Content: I would like to see a separate forum for chatting about more general, off-topic matters. This would also make the WUWT site much more active and popular. To unburden moderators, you could limit the membership in this forum to those who participated by commenting for some time, and are thus “vetted” to behave properly.”
I tried to congratulate the effort of another commenter on Tips and Notes the other day, not to start a discussion, but to offer support, and got snipped. I have no idea where else one is to do such a thing and frankly, as a fiscal and moral supporter of this website, felt quite frustrated. I recognize, however, why you introduced that rule, as it often takes forever to load Tips and Notes, which fills up very quickly.
Aside from this, I think you have fantastic moderation – I miss CMT, though.
I generally enjoy the guest writers, and second everyone here who says “More Willis Eschenbach…”
I agree with you about nested notes. Perhaps if comments were numbered it would be easier to follow debates, as sometimes it is necessary to scroll back and forth and sometimes I resort to using my computer desktop (by moving the WUWT screen over somewhat) to find a point of reference.
I use WUWT as my main source of information about the CAGW issue, but also enjoy the information gleaned from unrelated articles, and trying to understand what is going on with solar events etc. I loved the radioactive banana article the other day. Particularly intriguing are the philosophical discussions (cf Post Normal Science): the discussion between defenders and critics has provided perspectives on recent science in other fields that will enhance my own further scholarship. The Judith Curry articles have been likewise enlightening. I send links to WUWT stories to some colleagues, and definitely have accumulated a library of important stories which will be used as references for lectures and research. I also use WUWT as a portal to other Blogs, and really appreciate the links you provide.
Don’t mess too much with what essentially ain’t broke.
With kind regards,
Jennifer

Anthony, I love reading all the posts and comments here. I am not as educated as most people who comment here and more often than not, I cannot understand the graphs. Where do graphs start and finish and how do you achieve the “average?” My schooling ended pre university in 1964, so, while I have a great appreciation of science, I have no great understanding of the latter day sciences.
Remember the old adage.
KISS! and I know that I don’t have to explain that. PW
Peter Walsh, Dublin, Ireland

Earlier……
“Latitude says:
February 20, 2011 at 10:11 am
Anthony, I think everything is perfect the way it is.
It’s easy, comfortable, and intuitive….nothing gets in the way…..yet everything is here.
Wouldn’t change a thing……”
Nothing more to be said really. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
WUWT rocks.

Re Twitter, I treat it as a miniscule blog. I see following as a screening service.
Don’t get caught up following those who follow you, most are lame. It’s only a “social” medium if you want it to be.

Only one minor suggestion/complaint. In guest posts, try to discourage the use of formulas or units in SI form, and formulas written in LateX or LaTEx or whatever it is.
When written in regular HTML, those formulas and units turn into gibberish. For example,
Watts per square meter per thousand years.
In SI, as transformed from lAtEx into HTML, this becomes something like
Wm-2kY-1
which seems to be saying “Watts times meters, minus 2 kiloyears, minus 1”.
I can sometimes parse out what’s meant, but when the formula isn’t already familiar I’m lost.
Better to write out units in verbal form, and better to write formulas in a style that can be copied directly into computer code where possible.

I read it a lot. There is tremendous diversity, which I like a lot. On many blogs, you know what the thrust is going to be before you start, on WUWT you rarely do. Don’t change it a bit.

I don’t use the other technology links. Don’t know a tweet from a toot. I thought Facebook was the new term for a photo album.
I’m old school. The current format is like communicating via letter only faster. For this country gal, I like it just the way it is.
The reference pages are nice but they don’t load very fast for me. It is faster for me to visit the original sites one at a time. But that’s a problem with my system, not yours.

I don’t think that there is any need to morph this site into anything that it isn’t already.
As far as tweeting and ratings go, I think that popularity is a distraction.
The argy bargy of character assasination on both sides of the debate leaves me quite cold.
What is important is to keep up the quality of debate and to stay focussed on the Science as a route to some sort of true perspective on the various threads that compose the warp and weft of climate science.

Anthony – if you would like to encourage contribution of articles it would be good to have a page with some details of what would make your life easier in this regard. Things like format (Word, PDF etc), graph style, copyright aspects, file attachments etc. I have not used the email contact form, but from the look it does not allow files to be attached.
Your policy page covers commenting but doesn’t say anything about this area.

Please consider introducing nested comments so that we can follow exchanges between commenters more easily. I haven’t looked at Reddit recently but they started this quite some time ago.

Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is how best can WUWT influence the decision makers, which in the Western World comes down to influencing politicians who in turn use ministries or departments to effect change. (Of course it works in reverse too.) As one small example, in NZ I worked through my member of parliament to try to stop, or at second best delay, the introduction of our Emissions Trading Scheme. He was very sympathetic but in the end the ETS was passed and adopted. But in arguing against its introduction he was most interested in obtaining recently published scientific papers, not opinion pieces. He wanted authoritative findings that countered IPCC claims – which he understood were not necessarily backed by hard science, but were nevertheless seen as the official word by government.
So, in agreement with other comments already posted, it may help to categorize topics and overtly draw attention to newly published peer- reviewed findings and distinguish them from opinion – even though the opinion pieces at WUWT are excellent. Of course, newly published information is quite evident to current WUWT readers, as is informed comment, but some form of simple guidance on category of topic might help expand readership – hopefully to more decision makers.

Format and style: Good! Easy read, just enough info on home page to see if we want to read more on later pages.
Content: More info is always good, but only if the quality can be maintained. I like the thought put into the WUWT posts instead of bing just another “gossip” site that reposts the thoughts of others.
Content: More news info is good, again only if it’s actual factual content instead of just gossip.
Moderation: So far, so good. Given the tactics of The Team, it’s better to allow opponents to be heard even if it risks giving the trolls a bit too much leeway.
Features: The biggest feature I would like to see is a page with outside links to factual stories that can be used in discussions with others. Often, links to WUWT directly are dismissed out of hand and sometimes I can’t find the WUWT story where I recalled seeing some fact based link. Here’s some examples from my own limited link library:
IPCC cherry picks data
Student nukes NASA scientist
GISS station decline
Guest authors: All have seemed good so far.
Ideas for regular weekly features: Make the warmist editorial cartoons a regular feature instead of just individual posts.
How do you most use WUWT? Primarily, I use WUWT to get “the other side of the news” to see what’s being ignored elsewhere. And in language that’s understandable even if I’m no expert in the field, yet still contains actual factual data and not just opinion. And it’s a goldmine of outside links even if it’s sometimes hard to go back and find link’s you vaguely recall seeing a few days or weeks ago.
What could we do better? My only real complaint is with links. As inserted in the original posts the shortcut text reads well, but it is not always the most descriptive of the content in the link. When trying to find them later, by skimming the articles, it’s hard to find the right one. Maybe a seperate relisting of the outside links at the top or bottom of the post.

Anthony, you do a great job. Keep up the good work and thank you. No particular comments on the technology and process. Here are a few comments on the content and overall theme of your blog.
“WUWT and its place in the climate debate.”
1) WUWT – thoughtful, science driven, respectful debate and testing of ideas.
2) APG SKEPTICISM does NOT equal ANTI-ENVIRONMENT, ANTI SCIENCE.
I’d like to see a stronger theme (more frequent reminders, separate posts and articles and links) around this idea as I struggle with it and wonder if others may too.
I believe our modern, consumer-driven, affluent lifestyles too often result in our not being good stewards of God’s green earth. We can be skeptical of the narrow focus on GHG reduction as somehow the only way to save our planent, while still being mindful that we would do well to increase our true environmentalism and become better stewards.
Put another way, are their ways to learn from the best of the AGW proponents ideas? Can we remember to not stoop to demeaning the other side as “warmists” in the same way they do us as “deniers”?

1) I’ve been disappointed sometimes when comments dry-up right at an interesting point; it seems because the lead article has disappeared off the bottom of the page. I think it would be good if the post introductions could be shortened because they proliferate so rapidly that “dropping off the page” comes too early sometimes.
2) Comment numbering would be nice, providing any retrospective deletions or whatnot don’t occur.

Why fix what ain’t broke?
It’s a wonderful site. I can’t always read very long articles and streams of comments, but what I do read is fascinating.
Please don’t alter the font size; it’s great for older people! I had cataract surgery last year and my eyes tire more quickly than they did when I was younger. It is a much easier blog to read than others I visit.
This blog also loads more quickly than most; a blessing in this area of very iffy and variable broadband speeds.
I have sometimes given a link to WUWT on another (PC and warmist) Australian site. I cannot stomach the idea of either Twitter or Facebook…sorry!
Best wishes Anthony, and don’t burn yourself out, and thank you.
Annei

Anthony,
To date you have had over 70 million visitors to this site. Why do they come here? Because what they find is good stuff.
There are guest posts, there are conflicting opinions which get discussed in civil terms (unlike almost every other blog concerned with “climate”) and the comment moderation has achieved a level of consideration which other sites would be urged to emulate. I especially like the “48 hours sin bin” that you have adopted, not banning, just slowing down and making people think for a while.
Don’t change anything. You’ve got it right.
My only concern is for you as a person; you are trying to run the most popular climate blog in the entire world. Don’t burn out, please. The reactions of everyone who read about your son’s efforts in the very important model-car race show how we think of you; your wife’s recent indisposition likewise garnered sympathy from around the globe, all of it heartfelt.
Keep WUWT as it is, it does not need improving.
All that is needed is assurance that you, the originator and driver of this site, can keep up with the incredible demands on your time and your life.
PS How’s the cat settled in? Enquiring minds need to know!

I don’t like the font because it has fine lines (e.g., “e”) and serifs and the words are hard for me to read. I would prefer a constant-width Helvetica which would make columns of data in a comment line up properly.

Dear Anthony,
never change a running system!!!
Please, don’t change anything. Keep up the excellent work and thanks to all contributors. I enjoy to check your site several times a day. (Thanks for sharing your SSD experience, that was great.)
Best regards Eberhard

Lots of comments and most good too. I think you have it about right. It is easy to read and thoughtfully laid out. The moderators do a good job and perhaps we don’t say thank you to them as often as we should. WUWT is and has been successful. So it is not a good idea to mess to much with success. Evolution not revolution.

Climate Audit uses the nested threads, and I’ve found them generally confusing – Anthony
It’s reassuring to known that I’m not the only one to have experienced that.

Anthony, your work is an epiphenomenon. History is flowing through it, and I am proud to be part of it. I can see the wartime strategy in keeping going, keeping the news flowing, every day. There is always, but always, the pleasure of looking at something fresh. And gradually, I see my own understanding, and that of everyone else, maturing, deepening, broadening.
Many of us have been looking for the “Churchill” of this “virtual” war. Perhaps he’s closer than we thought, just in a different form to what we had imagined. You seem to carry both that stamina, readiness with words, deep courtesy, hands-on knowledge, and committment.
After WWII, leading Nazis said we had a weapon we could not match. It was, they believed, called the Silent Minute. This was a minut of silence every evening at 9pm on the BBC broadcasting the striking of Big Ben. I think it was also key in people not burning out. I don’t want to sound funny, but could we have something like that in WUWT? – call it “burnout protection” for you Anthony. Your work is very important.
The most extraordinary of my experiences with WUWT has been the ongoing serendipitous synchronicities. It might flag for a few days and I draw back, then it comes forth again, fresh and incredible as ever. Always makes me feel that Great Spirit is watching over all of us – if we pay attention.
I see two developments that would help the “maturation” process and make material readily available for both newcomers and opponents.
First, a “FAQ for warmists” – preferably able to counter all Skeptical Science’s issues. Needs to be crowdsourced. How to construct such a project? Wiki? Several posts? I’ve been working on the wiki idea anyway – when I have time, after reading all the blog posts.
Second, introductory material for newcomers and beginners. Something. Anything. I’ve updated my Primer recently (click my name), though I am open to suggestions for improvement, if reasonably feasible – and would be proud if you felt you could make use of it. And not offended if not.

I also don’t like the way numbers are displayed: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. The 0, 1 and 2 are too small while 6, 7, 8 and 9 are too big. The 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 drop down too much. The 6 and 8 appear to “float”.

OK. A few comments…
Firstly, please do not even think about switching to inline comments like Climate Audit and Judith Curry’s blog. It complicates the issues, and it invites bickering and off-topic matters.
Secondly, it would help tremendously if comments were spread over a number of pages, or if it gave you an option to see all comments at once or in separate pages. As it is, a hundred-comment-thread is difficult to keep track of. Especially as new comments are added. Bishop Hill keeps his threads at 40 comments per page. 50 per page would be a good number. The Guardian CiF does it 50.
And thirdly, it would be great if WUWT offered more news and commentary from other scientific fields. There is a lot more “puzzling things in life” than those WUWT specialises in.
Other than these I have nothing to offer but praise. This is quite an amazing blog. I don’t mind if the number of posts are 5 or 6 a day. This provides more choice to decide which comments thread I should allocate my time. Honestly, I don’t read all posts and all comments. That would be too intensive and too time consuming. I am quite surprised how Anthony and his moderation team manage to stay on the ball, day in day out. I salute their stamina.
This has been said before but needs to be said again. The moderation policy at WUWT is quite exceptional in the blogosphere. For all those few of you who complain about what happened to their brilliant thoughts, if it wasn’t deleted/omitted by genuine accident or misunderstanding, then there usually is a valid reason why it was held back or snipped.
As a lurker and an occasional commenter for the last 18 months or so, I’ve had only one comment snipped, and another taken down. Although I was not happy, I believe both comments were snipped/deleted for valid reasons. The sarcasm and irony wasn’t picked up, I think.
The WUWT team have a great sense of humour and they are mostly on the ball. It is just that I don’t like using “/sarc”. That’s the one and only concession that I’m not prepared to make to WUWT. There are some things you just never do. I’d rather risk snipping and deletion than use “/sarc”. I’m prepared to eat the time-out without complaint.

Purpose, content and form are all appropriate.
Enjoying it every day. Keep going.
And … thank you.

I’d not change a thing. I really appreciate all the content, and look forward to checking WUWT several times a day…
It’s a lonely occupation, being a liberal climate skeptic. My friends think I’m a quack, my family too. Can’t tell you how much I not only enjoy, but need this site, which is far and away my favorite among the skeptical blogs…
Just came across this quote from Al Gore on Dr. Spencer’s site: “There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it’s no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere.”
That’s so infuriating, so patently, blatantly dishonest, so morally deficient, that it’s enough to make a grown man weep with frustration…What I’m trying to say in my awkward way is:
Please Keep Up The Good Work.

Been coming here since found your early work on the surface stations. Have been writing to Australian politicians before that querying their policies.
What I would like to see is a page with the temperatures put up as they used to be, ie showing the actual temperatures of high and low as per the John Daly site. (by the way, you do not have a link to his blog, it is important for historical purposes).
What is not realised by most people, is that all this temperature anomaly, is just the variation from an artificial construct of a so called mean or average temperature of a particular period of years.
I use the site to keep up with the latest scientific reports refuting the AGW hypothesis. By doing this, you are providing “balance” as there are billions being spent on promoting this scam.
You do not therefore, need to spend your time and money, assisting them in their promotion.
Stick to your good brand of honestly showing the alternative side of the debate, and do not go wandering off.
Remember that all many people know about sceptics is that they are nasty people. Just by showing that they are not, is reason enough for this blog.
I also use the site to introduce friends to the alternate point of view. Do not confuse newcomers by putting up AGW promotional pieces as articles.
You have no obligation to give air to tricksters and fraudsters and carpet baggers of the environmental/green movements, or even those who are nice but misguided (ie Curry). Be nice but don’t give air.
Don’t dilute your brand.
Be firmer with trolls, and keep people on topic more as does Steve M at Climate Audit.
Have a separate page for political comments and it would be a great help if the US commenters realised that this is a world wide blog now, and that Liberal means different things politically in different countries. eg. A Liberal in Australia is not a socialist.
I too would like to have the ability to reply to someone just underneath where they make the original comment. I see some comments here that this is bad. Would someone explain to me what is bad about it as I can’t see it. Is it something to do with the moderation? Please explain further on this.
Don’t dilute your brand.

Mods my comment has gone awry again so let me add that a list of the good guys should somehow be automatic. I find it annoying that my comments seem to end up in the bin all the time unless I notify you.
[Reply: comment rescued & posted – even before I had read this comment. Sorry about your posts ending up in the spam folder. WordPress has some strange glitches. I can see if another moderator put your post into spam. They didn’t, so I assume it was WordPress. ~dbs, mod.]

I don’t know if this is relevant to the present discussion, but no-one has come up with a good name for adherents of the CAGW hypothesis. I suggest Lysenkoists. Trofin Lysenko was an agronomist in Russia who believed in the Lamarckian concept of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In the late 1920’s he proposed methods of rearing crops based on this. He promised two crops where one had grown before. Stalin, who had largely destroyed Soviet agriculture with his policy of collectivisation, eagerly seized on his ideas and Lysenko rose high in Stalin’s councils. Geneticists who argued against Lysenko’s ideas were either executed or sent to prison camps. In 1948 Kruschev described genetics as ” a bourgeois pseudoscience “and its study was banned till the mid 1960’s.
Lysenkoism can be defined as the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion, as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Does this definition sound as if it fits?
Jim Davidson

Dear Anthony,
Looking back through all these comments, must make you think you’re sorry you asked!
But like others have said, “it aint broke, so don’t fix it”.
One small thing though, I know how you are often irritated by pedants, over spelling, grammar etc., (I too often have flutterbingers), but pedantry is what has got us in front of AGW. I don’t know Steve M or Ross M, but I bet like me they are both pedants. If they hadn’t insisted on seeing the data, the warmists might never have been found out. So let’s here it for the pedants once in a while.

I come to this web site daily just because I never know what you are going to post. Very scientific things abound, as do politically leaning posts, and some rather whimsical items that always amuse the inquisitive mind. I am not a scientist, just an engineer, so my perpective may be different than others. I hear your plea on Facebook, but it can and does become a time sucking monster that is really not worth much.

WUWT has great content. I use it regularly as a reference on AGW and other climate issues. However, I do find the site difficult to navigate. I’ve found the Thesis theme — at http://www.pearsonified.com/themes — flexible and easy to use. You might want to consider the “teaser” format — see my implementation of it http://whistleblowercentral.com — to improve reader access to your material.

I’d like to see:
– Numbered comments
– Like & Dislike a Comment via PollDaddy
–

What I like about WUWT is the variety of topics covered and the comments the threads generate . I have learned as much from the comments as I have from the articles – for the most part . Sure , some comments aren’t particularly germane to the topic , but they’re often interesting , even enlightening – some are downright funny . As in any discussion , sometimes the comments wander off topic but it’s rare that the entire thread gets hijacked – the mods don’t let things get out of hand . So , like I said above WUWT is fine the way it is . Thanks , Anthony .

Hey Anthony,
I’ve been following your exploits since the halcyon days of posting at Roger Pielke Srs. climate blog. That was back in the nascent days of the surface stations project. I have been very happy for your success and wouldn’t change anything, though minor tweaks in format and content are expected over time. A couple of thoughts to add:
(1) Someone mentioned reducing the political content in some of the stories. Unfortunately, that’s not possible anymore – the CAGW crowd has taken climate science from science to politics already (witness Hansen’s recent screed in a Chinese newspaper claiming we’re gonna die from global warming if the Chinese don’t help…yikes!). Stories on the political decisions being made around the world in the name of global warming are, in fact, some of the most useful and interesting that I read at WUWT.
(2) David L. Hagen said: February 20, 2011 at 1:06 pm
“…I would strongly encourage asking participants to work towards more meaningful important comments and leave of the fluff, chatter and foolishness.”
OK. In principal I agree, but sometimes you can’t help but laugh at some of the manic CAGW press releases. Making pointed jokes about them is a great way to let off some steam and make others smile (unless you’re from RC).
(3) Give “Smokey” his own guest-post from time to time. I really appreciate his candid comments when a troll eruption occurs.
cheers,
Frank K.

Suggestion to old engineer, re pre-composing in a word processor: they often send thru formatting codes which don’t work on blogs. Straight text only. An alternative: get the ClipMate package, and use the New Clip option to pre-compose. It then can paste directly into whatever location you want. As a bonus (!!) the package saves every “copy” action you do, anywhere, and there are both temp and perm folders for you to play with. IMO, the most powerful and useful surfing/composing utility anywhere.

I’m a recent visitor, and rare poster to this site (I think this is my second post) so please take this with a pinch of salt, but: it all seems to work. You seem pretty quick to report news, the analyses are worth reading even if I can’t always understand everything, nor instantly agree with everything I do understand, and we can read or not read the comments (along with the inevitable thread drift) at our leisure.
If I were you, I wouldn’t change a thing. Not because it’s perfect as it is – it almost certainly isn’t – but because by changing it you might break it. Better a slightly imperfect model that works, than spoiling it by trying to make it perfect.
Just my UKP0.02.
Derek

Personally, I like the site the way it is. The search feature actually works, and as long as I have half a clue as to what I’m after, I can locate it. I’ve searched out the Livingston-Penn data on several occasions and it’s always right there where I last saw it.
As for linkages… I do when appropriate. But I won’t touch Twitter, Facebook, Myspace with a ten foot pole. I’m a self imposed Luddite in that respect, and I know and appreciate the value of privacy. Data mining, both commercial and via anybody linked to In-Q-Tel’s investments, can pack sand.