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.
“How do you most use WUWT? ”
Having the RSS feed for the “Tips and Notes” entries pop up in my browser every day is priceless – hope any changes to the site don’t reduce this feature.
Chris Smith said on February 21, 2011 at 11:46 am
“The main problem with WUWT is that there is no debate occurring on the comments. It seems that everyone who comments on WUWT disagrees with AGW.”
I completely disagree, there is plenty of debate here. Could there be more? Sure but Al Gore, Joe Romm and Gavin Schmidt et al and their followers don’t do open debate well. That’s why they censor their own blogs.
If this is the Portlandtransport.com Chris Smith he operates his own blog exactly like Gavin Schmidt.
WUWT is successful for a very good reason. It is very good.
If anything I would like to see fewer one liners for comments.
AND a thread or two on the the chronicles of Jane Lubchenco.
I think I belong in the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” camp.
Excellent site. I think AW does a great job running this award winning, statistic busting, hockey stick shaped (web stats), conciousness (reality) expanding piece of cyberspace.
But when I link articles for other people I always say the meat of the dish is in the comments. Many people here have taught me things, from ocean circulation to storing food.
I hope when people listen to reasoned arguments from people who are clearly reasonable, intelligent and well informed, they will wake up and start to think for themselves. That’s why I always try and point them this way if the conversation turns even slightly this way.
This place is a beacon. An example. Long may it continue.
This blog is perfect the way it is.
Format and style: too busy or easy to read and use?
Format is great, easy to read and use.
Content: too much/too little/too narrow/too broad?
Almost too much for me, but keep it coming as I love it.
Challenging is what I like, why I read here.
Content: too much news/not enough news?
All news related to this scam is vital – know thy problem- as AGW is a huge lie that’s already costing/wasting too much.
Moderation: too heavy/too light? Too troll tolerant/not tolerant enough?
Seems about right to me, although I rarely post a comment, I don’t see so much the nonsense that can and has wrecked great sites before. Mods must be doing a great job here. If someone of an opposing view is being sincere that’s not being trollish to me and they are not banned here as far as I can see (their comments get posted) I see qualified guests of opposing views get invited to make their views or points as you’ve already undertaken – now how open is that? Don’t see this on the ‘AGW’ sites. Respect and civility is most important when commenting/replying – as the message gets lost then.
Features: (no I can’t make comment preview work, see this) what would you like to see?
Yeah and I’d like an extra electrical outlet in my kitchen while you’re at it … 😉
Quick cut and paste and voila it’s done, sometimes the editing goes off a bit, not a big deal. Don’t mind minor typos as I make them myself. Do spell check in my email which open while I’m on line. Use ‘draft’ and it auto saves for you.
Guest authors: good/bad/ugly?
Hehe those dusty spaghetti western movies with that ‘whistling tune’ comes to mind…
Think they’ve been great even if I don’t agree or understand as some are complex or don’t interest me but I take a look-see most times anyway. Some of the resulting threads/links are educational and wonderful when filled with intelligent discussions.
Ideas for regular weekly features
Nothing more comes to mind. Your Reference tabs are filling in nicely thanks, checking them almost daily now.
How do you most use WUWT? Reference, portal, news, commentary, bird cages?
News, references, commentary and an overall general feelings of relief knowing that there are others (much smarter than I) who also think that this AGW is a huge global tax grab/fraud/lie and who are working hard at getting to the facts and true science of the the whole matter. Then getting this information out to the public so they may see it and judge it for themselves – that’s priceless and vital.
What could we do better?
Nothing… Stay the same.
It’s humble and earnest around here, I like that.
(As far as ‘tweets, twitter, or facebook’, still haven’t done that yet. I’ll think about this and your points about gaining a wider audience by doing so.
Always feel great about passing out WUWT links on news sites when relevant and any other way I can. )
Thanks Anthony, thanks to your Associates who contribute so much, the mods and your guest contributors and to all the commenters who make reading/learning here so interesting and resourceful.
Anthony,
No basic changes please, it is great as it is.
Numbered comments would help.
Thanks for all your excellent articles and those of the guest posters.
Bob B.
Only suggestions I can think of is to reduce the number of distractions:
More “timeouts” for those (especially trolls) who put forward an argument and don’t support it.
Limit the number of lines a reply can contain, so that long-winded posters can’t filibuster.
Maybe inject a “continue reading” page break when a comment reaches, say, 15 lines?
Hi:
I have several comments…
1) I think your site is excellent as is.
To the extent that change is warranted I think it should reflect mission change in response to change happening around you and your subject.
When you started, the need for something like WUWT was fairly desperate because the immates were running the climate asylum and there really was no place to stand and shout “no.” Today, however, I rather think that job’s mostly done – and therefore that the primary mission needs to change, now and over the next year or two, to increasingly supporting positive developments in climate science.
This doesn’t mean that you should stop what you’re doing – after all the last gasp counter-attack from Gore et al will come as soon as they understand that it’s over – only that the focus should change more and more to supporting forward looking, positive, thinking.
You might, for example, open a new subject: explorations of the social and economic impact of climate with a view to establishing some kind of apolitical basis for assessing the costs and benefits of climate change.
2 – I notice lots of people here are urging you to re-think wordpress. Don’t do it: wordpress sucks, but it works – and that’s all you need. In general better tools impose greater burdens – so, absent some overwhelming benefit, sticking with a basic system that works well enough minimizes the time you waste playing computer techi.
3 – A little humor might not hurt.. for example a weekly “green inventions” segment might be fun.
Here in Sunny Lethbridge, for example, I’m working on plans for the MADly safe eco-car.
As you probably know the operation of the CAFE standards has led to lots of eco-cars killing or injuring their owners in collisions with cars, grocery carts, and mopeds -and that’s the problem addressed by the MAD car.
Made from ultralight materials it weighs in, empty, at little more than a 50CC Honda including two comfy seats, 2HP electric motors integrated into the rear wheels, and a 40 pound, fiberglass enclosed, flywheel. It sells with a 40 foot rooftop windmill which, in operation, spins up the flywheel via linear inductors set along its circumference – and, of course, that’s also where and how the car draws power to move. One good storm, and you’re good to go for 30 or 40 totally free miles – much more if you live in a warm climate and commute downhill both ways!
What makes the MAD car so safe is that the flywheel, a ceramo-metal construct, spins at over 1E6 RPM and, in a collision with anything heavier than a tricycle, fragments. As a result, the Hummer driver who might fear paint damage crossing off a Smart car or Pious and the two people crushed inside, faces instant shredding if he hits a MAD – and so may be expected to avoid doing that.
See? no fossil fuel, very cosy, and takes out Hummers – really how could greens not buy this? Investors can contact me at my other eco_business: Selfwarming_pu_floors.com.
Each time I read here, I close my browser feeling smarter than when I opened it.
To me, that says that there is nothing broken here, and as such, nothing in need of repair.
The site is absolutely brilliant. Just one plea – try to define acronyms at least once in a posting. I often flip to Wikipedia for the meanings, not always successful.
REPLY: See the glossary on the header menu – Anthony
No changes. I will follow u on Twitter, Facebook. Didn’t know u were there. Font size is fine. I complained to Debbie Schlussel that her site should look more like WUWT, her font size is too small, though I’ve learned to read it. I have a bit of a personal beef with CTM. Overall, to mimic a common Muslim statement, WUWT IS GREAT!
Anthony,
One suggestion I would make would be a category of guest posts that are somehow separate from what you necessarily support. For instance, you often write a disclaimer at the beginning of some posts saying:
or the functional equivalent. Maybe a more regimented method of separating these posts out would be useful….a special heading, a special section, an ‘opinions of others’, or something. Allowing the posting of things that ‘ought to have a hearing’ but are marked as ‘not endorsed by WUWT or AW.’
WUWT is Great!!! I have learned from both the post and the replies to the post. Keep up the awesome work. Don’t change a thing.
Well my tuppence for what it is worth.
I use WUWT as my portal for all things AGW thus moving out from it and back again. I am sorry I do not tweet or facebook: far too much of an old curmudgeon.
I have no problems with the layout or the steady improvements from reference pages to Ric Wermes guide and so on. It all functions pretty well.
Moderation, I have always found it excellent, of course we have our trolls who if verbose and obsessive are at least polite: and so tolerable.
Content is much more difficult because things are changing so fast, a while back this was a quiet place, almost a backwater with a post or two a day, nowadays it has a far wider audience and contribution: I have remarked before here how notable the change is in that even the high and mighty of the Climatariat are increasingly coming here to justify themselves. This is the way of the world and not to be gainsaid.
So I can’t really suggest any great improvement, all seems pretty well as it is and no wholesale change is needed although doubt incremental change will occur as time goes by and either prove desirable or be quietly dropped.
Nothing succeeds like success, you have a winning formula, and how!
Kindest Regards
Another enormous thread! Impossible to get through in the time allowed. I need to learn speed-reading, or something.
I’ve said it before: This is a fascinating site, even though much is over my head; I love to hear engineers and scientists talk shop, and not a visit goes by that I don’t learn something.
Ditto, ditto, ditto to what JoeH said. Does WordPress support numbered comments?
And I agree with you, Anthony: Nested comment threads are confusing, and annoying.
The mix of news/politics and science is about right. I’d like to see more non-climate science, but then, I can’t find time to read everything now.
PS I’ll read anything Willis writes. Every time I see the name, I think, affectionately: Robert Heinlein, Red Planet. 😉
/Mr Lynn
I, too, would like to see a summary for non-techies provided wiht the very technical articles.
I, too, would like to see an end to the “it’s all the fault of liberals” rants. Most of us out here in the real world don’t know what Americans mean by a “liberal”. Was Margaret Thatcher one?
And I would also like to see a link to
The Unbearable Nakedness of Climate Change:
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/
Speed says:
February 20, 2011 at 10:30 am
Real life? I doan’ got no steenkin’ real life. My motto from my youth has been “retire early … and often.” I’m currently retired, but the winds are blowing in the direction of getting called back into the working world. I’d love to make my living as a climate peer reviewer … but unfortunately the Koch brothers haven’t contacted me, and no way I’m asking them …
Actually, that’s kinda true about my life, because I’m doing these analyses in real time. Mosh sent me the Nature rainfall paper on the 18th, I completed and posted the analysis by the 20th, including locating and getting the data (750 individual files for the US alone, why do they do that?), writing the program to sequentially read the files and collate the data, analyzing the files and creating the graphs, taking the presentation pictures of the graphs, doing all of the subsidiary research on things like Hansen 1987 and Allen and Tett, and that’s not counting the writing of the text, putting it all into its finished form, transferring it to WUWT, uploadind all the graphics, spellchecking , and I’m done … two days. Dang, someone out there must want to pay for that kind of mad skilz …
Maybe a more regimented method of separating these posts out would be useful….a special heading, a special section, an ‘opinions of others’, or something. Allowing the posting of things that ‘ought to have a hearing’ but are marked as ‘not endorsed by WUWT or AW.’
——————————————————-
No, no, a thousand times no! We do not need more oracles ‘endorsing’ positions. Quality control is one thing – creating ‘in’ and ‘out’ groups is another.
I’m kind of late to answer this one, but I would like to see more emphasis on scientific accuracy. There is far too much tolerance in the moderation of people who do not understand the basic physics yet still believe that their pet theories are the best. Often they are so caught up in conspiracy theory that they are impossible to teach, and this is not a good environment for teaching. I appreciate this goes against the ‘appeal to the masses’ approach, but it does not help the argument when people go off into talking about trace elements or models being the work of the devil.
Dear Anthony, In general the site is excellent at providing information and discussion. However I wonder if its a case of preaching to the converted (trolls excepted) and that you would get more attention/coverage in the MSM if you were to edit and wrap up some of the rebutals and articles posted as “press releases” with suitable headlines. Lazy journos like nothing better than a good headline and a prepackage article, as we so often see when the warmists make an announcement. Joe public knows nothing about peer review so the fact it hasn’t appeared in a learned journal makes little difference to them. I hope this helps.
Nil carborundum
I am not generally a blog reader, but I look at yours on an almost-daily basis (I haven’t looked at my son-in-law’s blog in months!). I heard about WattsUpWithThat a couple of years ago when a talk show host (or two) talked about the Surface Stations project, checked it out, and have been hooked ever since.
Much of the content here is way over my head, but I still enjoy the posts and the comments, and I feel smarter for having done it. I love the diversity of subject matter, and viewpoint (pay no attention to those that might imply that you are too one-sided!), and the tolerance for opposing views, but I also really appreciate the level of moderation that keeps things civil and light.
At your suggestion above, I have linked to twitter and facebook (I think). I don’t use them much, but have some friends who do, so hopefully I’ll help spread the word.
You have stated several times recently that you were going to slow down and spend more time with the family, but I am still astounded at the volume of postings here, not to mention the comments! I can’t keep up and have a life, myself, so I don’t know how you do it. You would be forgiven (at least by me), if you were to cut back even further.
I think you must do this because you love some part of it – nobody does a job with so few rewards (and so much hassle) so well if they don’t love it. Thanks for all you do!
Micro:
–
1) seeohtoo suggested, “What I would like to see is a limit on number of comments per page, possibly 50 posts per page.”
Unworkable, as this DESTROYS in-page searchability – an ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL capability.
–
2) Those suggesting numbering:
The posts are numbered. Each post has a hyperlink. The comment number appears at the tail end of the URL.
–
3) Suggestion for those struggling [unnecessarily] to follow exchanges in chrono-organized threads:
Invest mere seconds in learning to do a simple in-page browser-search [find = Ctrl-f; copy = Ctrl-c; paste = Ctrl-v]. Chrono-order saves tremendous amounts of skiing (skimming & skipping) time since it sorts messages into read & unread, completely eliminating the need to re-ski wastelands of tangled messages.
–
4) George E. Smith wrote,
“Don’t like the embedded videos; a link to them is fine for me […]”
Good point, particularly considering that while useful graphs cannot be posted, indiscriminately-posted videos routinely brake the browser [which a multi-tasking user may have doing dozens of other things…].
—
MACRO:
–
A) Many have requested plain-language layman’s summaries. That’s not always going to be possible &/or advisable. The strategic target audience is not necessarily regular readers (but regulars are certainly welcome to glean what they can).
–
B) A few incisive commenters brought up mission change complexity (without calling it such). Something to stew on carefully while ‘the usual’ continues working fine…
Hi Anthony. I have a pretty long wish list. Perhaps you’ll find something useful in it.
I suspect half of what I’d like to see won’t fly in the “WordPress” world, but who knows, it’s worth a try.
I agree with the “If it’s not broken don’t fix it” crowd in a way, but your exposure has grown, and WUWT is really on the vanguard of an important issue of global significance; it makes sense to grow as needed. The problem is not to grow in such a way as to become unusable. I would suggest some of your growth should be in innovative directions, and others should be purely practical & cosmetic.
First, I am irritated by the narrow frame page format. Browsers nowadays generally provide a high-density image about 8-10 inches wide. It does not make sense to me to have a fixed-width frame for the entire blog. In my current browser window there is 1.5 inches of grey unused space on either side of WUWT’s blog frame. If I blow up the text a bit, as I like to do, it squeezes into this tiny frame and breaks lines up in a way that is quite ugly.
The fixed-width frame (as an overriding metaphor for pages — I’m not referring to specific uses that still make sense) is an ill-conceived throwback to the early days of the web when screens were smaller and not as high-density as today. Can you go to a format in which the frame is either dispensed with or automatically resizes to fit the browser window?
Second, I think the ragged-right text style looks unprofessional. if you allow natural-sized browser frames, why not also change to a “flush-both” textflow? This only looks bad on really narrow frames. It looks much cleaner on longer lines than ragged-right.
Third, I think you need more moderators. I’ve nothing against those already working for you — you’ve got the best in the blogosphere. But you need more. It’s time, I think, Anthony, that you deputize a few of your most knowledgeable and longstanding moderators to have control over the recruitment and training of more junior moderators. Give over some control of day-to-day running of the site to some of your amazingly talented helpers. I think YOU should be freed up to concentrate almost entirely on content issues.
Third, I disagree with those who feel there isn’t enough troll control. You don’t want to do this. You’ll be accused of censorship. And some of the accusation is bound to be valid. You don’t want to go there — that’s the world of the climate alarmist sites. WUWT is not afraid of dissent, and you don’t want to do anything that would feed the impression that you are.
Yes, the moderators must do a certain amount of banning, snipping and purging, but the threshold for “abuse” should be kept quite high.
WUWT has one of the best mixes of visiting commenters in cyberspace (maybe second only to Climate Audit on this particular issue). You want to keep it that way. You have many academics and experts in various fields who chime in continually to keep the conversations at a very high level. I strongly encourage anything you can do to foster this and to make it a prominent aspect of your site will only be an improvement.
So here’s something I recommend that might be a bit problematic on the WordPress side of things, but it would justify the need for a larger body of moderators:
Separate comment into two levels. Create an “expert commenter” classification. Visitors with expertise of various sorts can register and maintain a personal page UNDER THEIR REAL NAME (they can optionally “comment”, however, under a pithy pseudonym if they like).
The expert commenter personal page will document the person’s field(s) of expertise, academic qualifications, publications and professional experience, etc. — for public viewing.
Expert commenters needn’t have any ideological background. They may agree with the skeptical side, or with the alarmist side, lukewarmers, or have no opinion. They could spell this out or leave people to guess. I’d like to see Gavin Schmidt and so on set up pages and comment from time to time, for example. But more likely Judy Curry will set one up.
To become an expert commenter one must submit documentation to the administrators. A panel of moderators decides whether the person’s expertise is sufficient for the designation (or they may decide it is minimal, like mine — pure mathematics — but the person’s background provides them with some authority as long as they speak on appropriate issues).
Now I’m split as to how the experts fit in. My first thought is to permit TWO commenter threads for each article, one that experts only can contribute to, and one for the peanut gallery … er, um, I mean general public.
But then I thought it might be nice to have experts interwoven with the public comments and permit interaction between the two. Expert comments would be visually obvious — perhaps a different colour background or typeface, etc. Other commenters could address them directly with questions.
You could incorporate some sort of “reply-to” threading to make it easy to navigate “conversations”, forward and backward, in the comment threads.
If the expert and general comments are interleaved, I would strongly desire a feature that allows filtering of the general comments. Say a single button or checkbox that simply hides all but the expert commentary.
Here’s where it gets a bit more complicated — maybe a challenge for some of your web experts: Build in a functionality that permits general commenters to address experts with their comments. For example, I want Will E, Ken H and Fred S all to answer a certain question about an article I just read — I comment and have an option to enter a dialogue in which I select them specifically (there IS NO option to “select all” — that would simply be abuse! A limit of say 2 or 3 would make perfect sense).
This happens whether or not the expert has chimed in on that thread. Or, if it makes more sense, ONLY those experts already active in that thread can be selected.
On the expert side, when they visit the site they are given an option to review all comments directed toward them and respond, from a central location (to reduce their work). They can block commenters individually or simply select a “no comment” reply or one of several options such as “not my area of expertise”. Or one that links to a pre-written answer that they must repeatedly give to a certain common question.
The extra moderators would be needed to manage the more complicated interactions that result. They would form small panels for particular functions, like Wikipedia editorial crews, but on a far smaller scale. Commenters complaining of being mistreated by a moderator could appeal to such a panel. Posers who somehow “get in” as experts or experts abusing the position could be identified and disbarred. Abuse, for example, might consist of making authoritative statements about a field in which one is unqualified, or behavior that belittles nonexperts. Upon receiving a complaint a panel could convene and the complainer and expert could each present their case.
If you built in “reply-to” threading then the “Notify me of follow-up comments” checkbox could be more specific — one could select only follow-ups to one’s own comment, or to the subthread in which one is commenting.
You could also have optional email alerts for experts wishing to be notified when someone directs a comment at them. Obviously this would have to be optional, because some would be flooded with too much work this way.
For the REALLY popular experts, you could permit some sort of semi-moderator or assistant status so they can filter requests through a “staff” capable of answering most questions fitting their expert profile, who would have discretion to pass along important queries. Thus, Fred Singer might select 3 lesser-known atmospheric physicists who can answer “most” queries directed at him — their replies would be marked as “on behalf of”. They would be trusted by him and well-informed enough to know what sort of things he would prefer to answer himself. He would manage their access to comments directed at him through the site.
The key to all of the above is to make maximum use of the massive expert base you’ve got visiting here. Having hundreds, or thousands, of registered experts, would give people more reason to take your content seriously.
You could offer “symposia” in which experts, either by video link or by text, provide live interaction on emergent issues. All of which would be diligently recorded and made available on-site.
I’ll stop there…