I recently met with some of our volunteer moderators and contributors while in the Bay Area, and they provided some valuable suggestions on WUWT and its place in the climate debate.
Of course, I haven’t asked WUWT readers on this topic , so here’s an opportunity to weigh in.
First, I’d like to point out that I don’t know that I will make any changes. I’ve heard some interesting ideas, but have not decided on any course of action. I’d like to hear from readers what they think.
Some topics that I’d like input on:
Format and style: too busy or easy to read and use?
Content: too much/too little/too narrow/too broad?
Content: too much news/not enough news?
Moderation: too heavy/too light? Too troll tolerant/not tolerant enough?
Features: (no I can’t make comment preview work, see this) what would you like to see?
Guest authors: good/bad/ugly?
Ideas for regular weekly features
How do you most use WUWT? Reference, portal, news, commentary, bird cages?
What could we do better?
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.
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.
Thanks for your consideration – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony, I hold you and your site in great admiration.
How you and your team can keep it going round the clock fills me with awe.
WUWT, CA and Bishop Hill, for quite different reasons, are my three MUST read blogs.
I have a few suggestions, most of them Do Nots:
* Don’t make significant changes to the layout, format or general approach.
From a maketing point of view – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
* The trolls are a nuisance, but how much of an irritation depends on my mood. Sometimes I find the earnst batting of ridiculous balls back and forward quite amusing.
Also some trolls are only semi-trolls and have good scietific training and amongst all the rubbish they sprout, have good points to make.
* I apprciate your management and organisational skills which mark WUWT from the other two blogs I mentioned.
Those depend almost entirely on the skills and flair of the originators – they are extended personal statements.
WUWT is as well, but in addition is an organisation.
I am suggesting that you take the next step in its development (see what follows).
* You already make good use of guest posts and even guest editors, when you have to absent yourself, or when the guest author is best equipt to respond to the floods of comments that come in.
* my main suggestion then is an organisational one, designed to make sure that you do not burn out.
From my bitter experience, you don’t get much warning.
One day you are coping quite well in a busy, stressful situation.
The next – bang – you can’t get out of bed – it can take years to recover and the scars remain.
* My suggestion is simple.
Take two consecutive days off per week – the weekend preferably, depending on you family and your circle of friends.
You can do this and still keep WUWT humming 24/7.
Simply schedule ALL the guest posts for the weekend and insist that the authors also do the management during their shift at the wheel.
Good luck.
your service to the English speaking world is vital.
I would love to see comments numbered. The comments are one of my favorite things about WUWT and I would like to be able to navigate back to the last one I read.Numbers would make this easier.
I would like to second r’s suggestion (4:41 pm) that you have a ‘classics’ or ‘best of’ header for newbies as a place to send people who have started to question the dogma. As Lucy Skywalker says, there are occasional ‘dry’ patches (never more than a few days) and one can never be sure when a new reader will dip in. If there was a specific series of key posts that would help acquaint newcomers with the depth of the riches at this historic website. Perhaps you could get us to put forward suggestions and poll us on the resulting list, as it sounds like a lot of work.
You’re the best of the best, Anthony and moderators. I also share others’ stated appreciation of the breadth of knowledge, wit and enthusiasm of other commentators here, and want to single out Smokey for his pithy and to-the-point contributions and links.
Anthony and his co-conspirators (obviously from Big Oil /sarc) are genuine seekers of truth. Since being referred here by Lorne Gunter from the Edmonton Journal I have been rewarded with a skeptical perspective on the whole climate debate, and seldom have I been let down.
Don’t change a thing Anthony, especially the content.
However, if you are inclined to make tweaks, I like the suggestion made previously to add a “What it means” link for dullards like me who don’t have the time or the brain power to wade through some of the longer technical articles. Some might call that feature an executive summary. If a commenter to such an article provides a meaningful summary or can tell us what the article means in non-technical terms then perhaps the mods could move it to the top or make a link to the comment in the article.
Thanks for shining a light on a debate that has many cockroaches lurking in dark places.
Give mods power to break up a long paragraph of solid text into short readable paragraphs of ca 6-8 lines.
I have mentioned this many times here and elsewhere that I don’t read comments that are one long paragraph. I just skip over them.
Put a word limit on a comment. Restrict the lenght of imported quotes.
Lindsay Holland says:
February 20, 2011 at 6:50 pm
> about the only thing i would like to see is having the comments numbered making it easier to reference a reply to a commenter.
I’m surprised at the number of people asking for numbered comments. Comments do have an essentially unique identifier – the date and time. I’ll often search back for a time reference in a quote like the above. On some of the longer threads, e.g. Tips & Notes, the time often isn’t unique, but most times it is.
BTW, comments are numbered! If you turn off CSS (some add-ons like “Web Developer” make that easy), sequence numbers appear. A problem with sequence numbers may be that if a page is deleted (or even if rescued from the spam bucket), the sequence number changes for subsequent pages. I think this really messed up ClimateAudit during one of its changes.
Also, note that if you right click on the date/time stamp, you can save the URL
for the new page and use that to direct people to the comment….
A commentator above has pointed out the confusion that can result from political terms such as party names having very different meanings in different countries. The problem is real, but I have found readers’ comments on WUWT very educational in understanding these differences (in UK countries, for example). Since I tend to have ‘See America first’ reflexes, this is a good thing for me. And we need to understand how these various structures are affecting the climate debate.
I think that WUWT is OK as it is but many of the questions raised by the topics are so involved that by the time I have worked out my response to them the topic has gone.The moderation on the site is OK,although it does tend to make interaction a little bit difficult sometimes.I think that the data/graphs that you update are good but I still prefer to browse around the Internet myself.I think that you do a very good job in general.
What can you do better? Omg Anthony – you guys are setting the curve in the Blogosphere. I wouldn’t tinker too much …
How do I use WUWT? Why I use it to amaze my friends and colleagues of course! Latest being 4 days ahead of the MSM Solar flare story. I share the site around frequently.
Format and style: Easy to read and use?
Content: I love how you have such a diverse set of topics – doesn’t have to be just CAGW-related – and it isn’t strident broadcasting. Its a questioning approach.
Content: I like the commentary on the news of the day – the ‘heads up’ and informed views on things. Keeps it fresh.
Moderation: I don’t see heavy moderation (I don’t think), but discussion of dissenters views quite important I think. Jerome Ravitz as an example – opened my eyes.
Features: what would you like to see? I do the majority of my reading and commenting on a mobile device – so your continued sensitivity to those platforms would be appreciated. WUWT is very friendly that way.
Guest authors: The guest authors are indispensable – and you offer a platform for voices that otherwise wouldn’t be heard. The quality of posts and argument varies a bit – but that’s ok as they find their voices
How do I most use WUWT? One stop shopping. I know where to first go to find an answer.
Keep up the fantastic work and maintain balance in your life …. Not necessarily in that order!
I like the site the way that it is. More news is good. Moderation of inappropriate language and topics is good, and should continue or even be stronger.
Would be nice to see ‘Team’ supporters show up and defend their point of view, but that would take courage and a change in mindset that doesn’t seem likely.
In general, don’t mess with it for the sake of doing so. Adding a bunch of shiny to the site will distract from the content, and content is why we’re here. Moderation is about perfect, as is the mix of subject matter. I’m always stunned at the consistent high quality I find here. Thanks to all who support WUWT for what must be an incredible amount of work.
I am comming too late to this post and reading all of the already 248 replies is too tiring, so sorry if this has already been proposed. I have two proposals, one of which is directly related to the just mentioned problem: how do you find the really valuable comments in a post with 250 comments?
I don’t know how easy / posible is to implement these features, but in case it can be done, I would really like them:
1.- I would include links “I like” / “I dislike” after each comment so that readers can vote them. The main problem, however, is how to prevent people from voting comments several times, given that WUWT doesn’t have registered users. So perhaps this one is not posible. But there really should be a way to allow people to distinguish those very popular/impopular comments so that someone who gets late to a thread can get an idea of what’s going on with a quick overview. Or perhaps we can let that to the author at least. If he thinks that a comment was especially valuable and adds something important to the thread, he could mark it for visualization in a different background color or so.
2.- Sometimes interesting dialogs take place in the comments of a thread but following them is complicated. I don’t like Climate Audit’s solution too much because it alters the order of the posts. What I would suggest is something lighter: a) numbered posts that you can refer to (#1, #2…), with the number being shown at the beginning of the post and in a big font size, and b) an autogenerated text after every post that has responses (people referring to it by its post number), linking to the corresponding replies. Something like “This post has been replied to in #23, #31, #45“.
My two cents.
Anthony, moderators and guest posters, truly there is an international following of admirers :-
Apologies to radon there Anthony
Format and style: Just fine
Content: Excellent – I just filter myself or follow up leads and links
Moderation: Fine- trolls live under bridges that men (and more recently women) mined and engineered
Features: Excellent
Guest authors: Very good and excellent, learn much from the comments
Ideas for regular weekly features : no
How do you most use WUWT?: Information on science, learning huge amounts about science across the globe and spheres, methodology more recently, reference, laughing til the tears roll down my face sometimes, posting on to colleagues or others to humbug them or broaden their horizons
What could we do better? Post more Clint
Some may begin to understand tGtBatU and the Ecstasy of Gold score is a lot of hard work, dedicated rigour and science.
And like Anthony with hearing loss, >90% of my students (kids) had perforated eardrums from age 2 years and the adults scarred ones post healing.
Dr. Dave says: February 20, 2011 at 11:20 am – second your comments
Ian L. McQueen says: February 20, 2011 at 11:23 am
For the less literate perhaps a link to a grammar site.
Oh oh- afternoon tropical storm happening here- creek’s flash flooding, need washing in and power is going to go. Lightening dash.
Very difficult to improve, in my humble opinion.
It would be good to see a concise, daily rebuttal of this sinister “Carbon Brief” blog, perhaps with one or two links, thus forming a diary of argument all in one place. However, I do realise that would be time-consuming, and somewhat tedious!
Thank you Anthony.
Oh, and by the way, what about an overview of the moderation queue? A small box just before the “Leave a Reply” box, with a content similar to this:
Posts from user1, user2, user3 are waiting in the moderation queue. Please be patient.
It would be helpful no only to know where is your just written comment, but also, if you are about to respond to someone and you can see that that someone has another comment in the moderation queue, you may decide to wait until his new comment appears. Perhaps he has already answered / clarified what you were about to ask.
Essays by your guest essayists often adopt as a premise the argument that is known as “mechanistic reductionism.” This is the argument that all physical systems can be reduced to cause and effect relationships. This position is reflected in the many essays that take positions on the cause and effect relationships that are operative in the determination of the climate. Often, these positions are followed by comments that accept mechanistic reductionism as a premise but differ on the nature of the cause and effect relationships.
Systems that are reducable to cause and effect relationships share the property of being representable by linear equations. The climate is not representable by linear equations. Hence, the climate cannot be reduced to cause and effect relationships. Thus, the premise of mechanistic reductionism is false. In adopting mechanistic reductionism as a premise, your blog loses much of its intellectual power.
My boss always says “if its not broken dont touch it”.
I think site is good as is.
I’ll have to second Marks opinion
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
Good job by mods. and all. pg
I first heard about WUWT through an ABC (Oz) program on climate denialists.
I have read WUWT about once per week for nearly 2 years, and have sometimes difficulty in identifying the conclusion or significance of many of the articles. This because they often lack a triumphalist “Told you so conclusion”. This gives me some confidence in the site, because CC theory its a complex business, and simple conclusions and solutions are unlikely to hold water, one expects complex questions to result in more complex questions. I honestly dont know what to make of much of the data on CC and AGW, I am not trained in natural or physical science – fortunately many of the commentators provide further insight into the significance of particular articles. I do have the intelectual confidence (and Instinct) to challenge AGW alarmism from historical, economic, political and organisational pespectives. WUWT provides some further confidence that the “Scientific Consensus” is a chimera, an oxymoron.
In my limited experience, science should be concerned with the pursuit of truth, guided by theory, observable data and testable outcomes, protected by doubt and scepticism. Models should be tested, and it should be possible to replicate results.
WUWT seems to subscribe to these basics, and holds AGW question as a theory to be tested, not a faith to be worshipped.
I do try to tell me friends, and opponents to read the site. Many people, especially AGW evangelists, find too much irritating detail.
I have never used twitter, my guess is people who need their info in little chunks will not be able to follow much of what goes on in WUWT.
Anyway, I wish Mr Watts and WUWT a long and prosperous life. Keep up the excellent work.
Best wishes from
Ian
Perth WA
do n.
A bit late to the party, but regarding the RSS feed. It stopped working for me last week. I tracked down the problem to using the wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/feed link instead of wattsupwiththat.com/feed link.
/relurk
Third time of reading posters’ remarks here.
Love it, love them, love you all.
Keep it low-bandwidth, please. My computer can’t handle sites with videos and moving ads — freezes up.
REPLY: Time to upgrade then…
WUWT has:
A good mix of subjects.
A good mix of levels.
Generally a good mix of guest authors.
A good mix of commentators – even the occasional troll to laugh at!
It’s easy to read.
The moderators are excellent.
What more can I say? Keep up the good work, Anthony.
Cheers,
Neil
A lot of me agrees with the sentiment “if it aint broke dont fix it” but I do also think about the need to distill the wisdom gleaned here and elsewhere, into bite-size introductions for newcomers, our dratted/beloved grandchildren, and answers to Skeptical Science etc.
Linked projects (cf SurfaceStations) perhaps? A forum like CA101?
WUWT is great as it is.
Don’t change a thing.