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.
Format and style: too busy or easy to read and use? – I really enjoy how easy it is to use on my blackberry.
Content: too much/too little/too narrow/too broad? Don’t change.
Content: too much news/not enough news? Don’t change.
Moderation: too heavy/too light? Too troll tolerant/not tolerant enough? You’re pretty tolerant, perhaps a bit tighter occasionally, but not really necessary to change.
Features: (no I can’t make comment preview work, see this) what would you like to see? No change.
Guest authors: good/bad/ugly? Love the guest posts – fresh perspectives and interesting thoughts.
Ideas for regular weekly features – nada
How do you most use WUWT? Reference, portal, news, commentary, bird cages? – I use it as a political/science news site, commentary site, and for references when debating folks about climate issues. Also have referred some folks to your posts about your weather programs, LED lighting, etc. I also link a lot to Facebook – usually just copying the hyperlink and pasting it in my facebook. Is there a way to post a facebook link that gives you credit that helps your ratings?
What could we do better? Just keep doing what you’re doing. It’s the #1 site I visit for climate & weather science. Thanks so much for your efforts!
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 excellent, as is, far exceeding my expectations or needs. I am truly thankful for your efforts and contribution.
The only suggestion relative to your request is perhaps to “designate” certain posts as “science only” and the mods would restrict/remove all posts of a personal or opinion-related nature, leaving only room for discussion of science and scientific information. Certainly dry and somewhat draconian but, nonetheless, an option that would shorten the comment roll and increase the information transfer.
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.
1) Format and style: too busy or easy to read and use?
My only “complaint” would that I’d like to see better differentiation between poster’s remarks and quoted content (occasionally I miss a transition and think something being reposted from elsewhere was said by you Anthony or the other posters). I’ve sometimes had the same problem with quotes within a quoted article. More extensive use of italics, bold-face, or identation would help, but I don’t know how easy that is with the forum software. This is a minor nit, and it doesn’t hurt me to read _carefully_.
2) Content: too much/too little/too narrow/too broad?
Climate and wearther issues drew me here originally, but I very much like that you cover other things, too. Sometimes I wish there was less on the political front, but that’s a fact of life, I’m afraid.
3) Content: too much news/not enough news?
I think you have a decent balance now.
4) Moderation: too heavy/too light? Too troll tolerant/not tolerant enough?
Just right. I can ignore trolls, except when I decide to have a little fun with them (naughty of me, but that’s me ;^)
5) Features: (no I can’t make comment preview work, see this) what would you like to see?
More on realistic alternative energy (thorium & pebble bed reactors and such), but again, that seems to be happening anyway of late. ( I might add “electric universe”, but while I find it interesting and thought-provoking, some folks take it as… never mind. And it might lead to “iron sun” arguments. ;^) )
6) Guest authors: good/bad/ugly?
More from pro-AGW _scientists_ (as opposed to Hansens and Manns). I know I can get that at other sites, but I’ve found that when they can be persuaded to post here, the discourse is a little more reasoned and rational without the name-calling, insults, and evasion I see at other sites when someone asks a serious question. I want to _learn_. Around here, people seem to be able to distinguish between question, critique, criticism, and attack. WUWT is not the first site I came to for AGW info; I started at some pro-AGW sites, but got turned off by the insistence on accepting AGW gospel as revealed, unquestionable Word.
7) Ideas for regular weekly features
Power generation updates? I.E.- thorium, pebble bed, real PVC advances, fuel cells, thermoelectric, et cetera.
8) How do you most use WUWT? Reference, portal, news, commentary, bird cages?
1. news, 2. commentary, 3. reference.
I link to WUWT at my site, and link the occasional specific post (less so lately, since I’ve been wrapped up in another issue). I’m afraid I don’t do Twitter (am I the only person left on the “Net that remembers “twit” and “twitlist” as negatives?), Facebook, or any of the other “social media”. My objection to much of that is philosophical, privacy, and bandwidth (no broadband in my area, and most social media is not especially dial-up friendly). And heck… I already have a whole website. :^)
Basically, I like WUWT, and appreciate the work you, your mods, and guest authors put in here.
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.
To be honest I don’t know how to fix something that isn’t broke! But I’d be grateful of some who to follow on twitter suggestions!
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.
One of the best sites on the web. Great content and moderation. Don’t take out the politics in the name of science or we have lost the raison d’etre.
As for suggestions:
a) Post of the week. Some comments offer great insight on emerging stories and are worth a recap and others are just hilarious.
b) How about a monthly “what ever happened to” post? For example, what ever happened to that Australian family that wasn’t allowed to expand their hog operation? We donated some money to them and then they seemed to fall off the face of the earth.
Cheers, Steve
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
I won’t change a thing. Just as the super bowl champ QB was from Chico, CA I think this blog is the super bowl champ of science sites and its QB is from Chico, CA also.
Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Everything here is good.
You considered changing things up a couple of years ago and I have the same message now as I did then, “Dance with the girl that brung ya.”
Minor tweaks, yes, but you draw readers by the thousands just the way you are doing things now. Don’t mess with success.
You did make one change already and that was including more guest posts. I know it was in “self defense” because you needed some time for youself and family, but I think that was a change for the better. It’s about the right amount of “Anthony et. al.”
Oh, wait! I hate it when people comment to you or criticize you about a guest post without bothering to read who actually wrote the post. I’d be fine with the mods not posting those and pinging back to the commenter that they are barking up the wrong tree – try again.
As ever, Anthony and the Mods (doo-wop, doo-waaah!) have the best moderating touch. A little OT (even a lot if it’s really interesting) is allowed and it makes for some surprisingly interesting contributions. I think that “just the right touch” with moderation is another key to WUWT’s success.
My $0.02 as a longtime loyal reader.
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.
This site is amazing. I never comment but I read it all the time. There is not too much content, nor too little. Some of the posts are amazing, such as the recent controversy over Steig’s and O’Donnell’s papers: what an impressive contribution to the science that was, to publicize the horrid flaws so clearly (what other media have done so? I know there are a few blogs and outlets, but none do it as well or reach as many readers). The regular posts from Spencer regarding the temperature readings are wonderful. The writing about climate-gate was fantastic. The tone is fantastic, the way you refuse to engage or be baited into feuds with some of the other sites or some of the less than impressive scientists pushing an agenda.
Don’t burn yourself out, just try to keep up with the content as it is, or use more guests if you feel the need, and I’d say continue to encourage your readers and others to link to this site and publicize the site, because its reach is one of its greatest assets and contributions. You are good at getting the to the truth and revealing it to others, providing strong analysis along the way.
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.
“Pirates of Pedant(ry)”, not “pendant”. Or were you just throwing us pedants a bone?
I would like to be able to reply to comments in line rather than at the end of the other posted comments, or is that already possible and I am ignorant?
I would also like to reach out to those on the AGW side to allow them all the time for pedantry they would like.
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.
Guest authors: good/bad/ugly?
I guess this would be my only concern here. While you remain a steadfast seeker of honesty and truth, I fear that the desire to open up to a larger audience or the desire to avoid accusations of a non diverse atmosphere, you will be tempted to begin to give guest authors, particularly those with little honesty and even less truth a larger and larger role. These things happen slowly over time. The bad actors see you have a credible place and want to use your credibility to further their cause or your poor judgment at a single critical time to destroy your credibility.
So, I would hope that you would keep your current strong emphasis on honesty and truth and not seek to demonstrate something that can never be accomplished, which would be the acceptance of the rabid ideologues. Remember, when someone comes from the rabid side of an ideological debate and changes mid-stride towards your side of the argument, is it because they truly have seen the light, or is it more the fact that they have seen the writing on the wall and heard the tolling of the bell and want to save themselves today so they can resume the fight another day, using your credibility to bolster theirs.
* 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)
Hi Anthony–
I like your blog just the way it is. I think the guest posts are great, and they help you spend time with family, etc. I like that you accept opposing views, within reason, as long as they are civil.
I sometimes mention you on World Community Grid, and at work. However, there are AGW advocates out there, that hate your guts (and probably hate mine too, for bringing up references to your blog).
The one thing that’s missing that I would like to see (probably too OT). I love families and I love kids. Would like to have at least one blog entry about your family. What does your wife do? Does she work? How old are your kids? Do they aspire to be climatologists, or weathermen, or storm chasers, or bloggers. Or, do they even know what a blog is? Do they help you (or think they help you)? What are their hobbies?
Would like to see a happy picture of you and your family.
It’s fine the way it is. Ecclectic and fleet of foot.
I think both site and content are great. I’m partially sighted, and find coloured backgrounds and fancy text a bit difficult, but the font and straightforward black on white here are clear and easy to read for me.
I subscribe to WUWT in Google reader and check it most days. I like the range of topics covered; on any given day I can be amused, informed, outraged, entertained, or bewildered, sometimes all of them at once. The world is full of so many fascinating things and I learn stuff here that I never dreamed of. For example, the recent explanation of radiation exposure in banana equivalent doses: that was highly entertaining and also very instructive.
I support the idea of numbering comments, but not the threaded style. One thing I would like to see, if it’s possible, is a ‘recommend’ button on comments. I very rarely add a comment myself because usually someone else has already said what I think (and normally much better), and I don’t want to clutter up threads with “Yeah what he said” posts 😉
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.
Also, any chance of numbering comments for ease of reference (as on e.g. Jo Nova’s blog). Either that or direct reply facility as on Bolt’s blog.
Thanks.