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.
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 generally love the site, but I suspect I’m not alone in wishing you’d stick to climate issues/science and skip the politics; it seems hypocritical to complain about the influence of left-leaning politics on science on the one hand, and then present your evidence along with posts that are heavily laden with right-leaning politics. Please consider that not all of your readers are conservative/Republican.
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.
Count me in the “Don’t fix what ain’t broke” column.
That includes the moderator philosophy. It’s the best out there with a near-perfect mix of tolerance for diversity and intolerance for malicious and disruptive trolls.
Hi Anthony, just keep things as they are!
Anthony
You have a very successful formula, which clearly works for a great many readers. I wouldn’t change a thing.
If WordPress supported it I would like to see a “Make WUWT Your Home Page” button. [In any browser’s Preferences you can do it yourself.]
I also love the numerous new articles every week. WUWT is like a magazine – you can page through it and always find something interesting. And many of the comments are as interesting as the articles.
More than any other site, WUWT has been instrumental in bringing about the sea change in the public’s perception of the catastrophic AGW canard.
Easy money is really the only thing that keeps climate alarm going, and in the current economy people are starting to take a second look at the astronomical sums being wasted on endless, duplicative climate studies that play games with the raw data and that always demonize “carbon.”
The AGW scammers are scared and on the run. WUWT is truly making a difference.
Great site, authors, and moderation.
Possible improvement ideas:
– use the new WP3 taxonomy feature to structure WUWT authors by name — may be able to support a site article search by author name. This could also be done by listing author names as a category.
– email alert subscription by author name, topic, or tag
– article synopsis feeds for news and education
– community projects area — some of us would be happy to help develop tools like Content Objects for K-16 educators.
This is a worthwhile exercise, though if the result is to change nothing, I’ll consider that success. First: Many, many thanks to the moderators. I don’t know if it’s possible to thank them enough, but I do frequently in thought and not by adding to their burden.
Format and style: too busy or easy to read and use?
Within the WordPress restrictions, this is great. Do not, do not, do not even think about nested comments. There are too many and having to go back an read the whole set of comments would be a disaster. But you know that.
Content: too much/too little/too narrow/too broad?
I’m bordering on too much lately, but some of that is from being tight on time
lately. I used to be able to read everything, I’ve finally been able to start
skipping some of the comments (I’m sure I’ve missed some useful ones), Sometimes
I’ve had to skip the posts that don’t interest me enough.
One request of commenters: Before you start typing, and again before click “Post Comment,” ask yourself “Does this comment add to the discussion?” “Me too” and “gratuitous digs” rarely add to the discussion. Sometimes they do, sometimes I just have to get get it out into the public. Gratuitous digs that cause someone to have to clean their keyboards are good. Finally, “Is this comment worthy of taking time from a moderator’s life to have them approve it?”
There have been a lot of comments I started but didn’t finish, consider yourselves lucky.
On the other hand, I’m amazed at the quality of some of the comments. My posts have been significantly improved by some of the commenters who’ve added their anecdotes or observations. I expect to find _the_ question whose answer is “42” here someday.
Content: too much news/not enough news?
Hmm, I don’t know. The effort to prevent the EPA from regulating GHGs is likely news worth mentioning. The news that a New Hampshire house committee approved HB 519 FN that would get NH out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative may not be. If it becomes law, it certainly will be. (House vote next week, finance committee review, senate, governor’s veto, veto override still to go.)
It might be worth having an open thread around all the time for something like that, or encourage little news snippets in the Tips & Notes page. I often read that first to see what’s new.
Moderation: too heavy/too light? Too troll tolerant/not tolerant enough?
Just about perfect. Your history as a TV Met comes through here. One thing I might do is write a web page (and link to it from my WUWT Guide) listing the banned topics, why they’re banned, and give links to sites that discuss them. I think I have it mostly written, then got busy with life. Perhaps a touch too troll tolerant, but you certainly don’t deserve any sympathy by the time they do get cut off.
Features: (no I can’t make comment preview work, see this) what would you like to see?
You’re doing really well on this within the WordPress constraints. Stick with WordPress, for all the reasons you’ve expressed.
Guest authors: good/bad/ugly?
I think all my posts are great. 🙂 Except that Ryan Maue and Willis Eschenbach’s are a lot better. I think it’s working out well. Good variety, good authors, good frequency.
Ideas for regular weekly features
Maybe a feature that is mostly links to news items, categorized by global, regional, state/province, might be a good way to handle news about works in progress that don’t warrant a full post yet. I don’t have time, but it might a good task someone could take on.
How do you most use WUWT? Reference, portal, news, commentary, bird cages?
Nothing important escapes WUWT’s attention any more. Many things I’ve read here first make the news in a week or someone tells me about days later. This is the biggest benefit of the increased readership over the last year or two. I use WUWT to hear about items first. And all the other stuff. Except I don’t have a bird.
What could we do better?
Remind me that I really don’t have a life and should spend my time helping WUWT more. 🙂
Anthony, as I work alone and at home, I spend a good part of each day here – probably more time than I should. Like some others have said, “it ain’t broke, so don’t fix it.”
At my age I know I tend to be a boring and dogmatic old fart, and it’s great to be able to make considered and (hopefully) intelligent contributions to the discussions that follow most posts. I find it easy to track stuff here, it’s easy to read in black on white (some blogs with clever special effects are visual nightmares. The best of WUWT is that it generally makes me feel that it seems to be a major factor in the process of bringing the actual science into the light and dispells much unscientific and alarmist mythmaking.
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 …
Fine as is, my favourite climate blog. Thanks Anthony.
WUWT is just fine the way it is – don’t change a thing .
Hi Anthony,
I rarely post, but enjoy your site very much indeed, visiting daily. I particularly appreciate the pure science side of it, though much goes over my head. The reference pages are awesome. I do enjoy your guest posters very much indeed, especially Willis Essenbach.
One thing that I don’t like is the fairly regular denigration of “liberals” or “leftists” – clumping them all together. I consider myself to be liberal (isn’t that a truly great word, the same root as liberty, liberation etc?), tolerant, open-minded, searching for truth rather than political ideology and so on. I think that sweeping condemnation of “liberals” adds to acrimonious argument rather that using science to open peoples’ minds to truth. This is mostly addressed to those who comment, rather than you, but please know that there are many liberals, leftists, Democrats, whatever, who really appreciate your site, its wisdom and tolerance.
It has been (almost) a life-changing site for me. Huge appreciation to you for that. Please go easy, though. Don’t let yourself get burned out!
Malcolm
Basic product is excellent, so just tweaks.
1: The ‘Donate’ button should not be halfway down the page and should not be specified for the Surface Station Project.
The Bible says the laborer is worthy of his hire, WUWT deserves our support accordingly.
2: The reference page might add some links to sensible articles about the broader topic of climate change, beginning with the initial discussions during the Johnson administration.
The reality from the ice cores is that climate can flip on a dime, suggesting that the official model of gradual exponential change is seriously inadequate. If this were broadly recognized, it would be very helpful.
Thus far, I’ve not seen any climate model that generates rapid 10 degree C swings in temperature such as the ice records show happened repeatedly.
3: The reference page might usefully add a section on “Open questions in Climate Science”, including topics such as the solar impact, cloud impacts, ground cover impacts, global heat flows, including dissipative mechanisms and of course the origins and effects of the various cycles we see in the oceans and the atmosphere.
Again, the need is for an overall perspective, ideally with references, to give a sense of what is known, what is surmised and what are the implications of our ignorance.
Anthony, I had to stop and really think on you question. I’ve spend over a year calling this a home site and as for the basic format I have no problem. It’s fine as it is.
And as to the content and posts I also have no problem, well, maybe to many second-hand AGW propaganda articles, they get old fast. My daughter ask me why your site now seems to change to an AGW site, no kidding. Didn’t even know she visited here on her own. But she’s right, there are countless other sites I can go to get an earful of that and I already know what the comments would be.
Have no idea if this is even feasible but I would have you consider one addition to the mix of top posts every now and then.
Since WUWT has a plethora of highly educated commenters here, why not have them either answering a very focused question having to do with the climate or weather or to have the commenters open up and pour out some of their knowledge on a very focused topic. I for one want to really learn here.
Sure would be easy on you. Basically an “Open Thread” post with a very specified question or topic that needs to be answered or garhered just information missing.
Or something like that:
— DATA: Knowledge or good links about the five major gases of the atmosphere, all about them. Only data and facts now, behave and try to not duplicate.
— QUESTION: Since every GHG molecule adds to back-radiation it also adds equal+ upward radiation to space and how does that affect the temperature of the atmosphere? Have at it.
— TOPIC: Since we live on a sphere, does the height of clouds above sea level affect the amount of radiation ejected to space as compared to if the Earth was a flat infinite plane? How are the GCMs handling this? Is it exactly half emitted radiation from the atmosphere up and half down? Go gather and help answer.
OMG… with that WUWT could be the one-stop site where to get basic data and knowledgeable explanations or links of all of the very specific topic that we discuss here but wouldn’t be spread over hundreds of posts, just information *from* the commenters or alternate views without feeling you are injecting something off topic. Even Wikipedia doesn’t do that (boy I hate that sites style, made for mass confusion and none in plain English, and yes trolls I can understand it but very slowly).
At the end you would either know either the single answer, well explained, or, the two or three conflicting viewpoints from which the reader would have to decide what is the true science answer to them, or, a great centralized page that is searchable from here if the titles given were consistent with a keyword.
That’s what I’ve seen missing, information from the commenter themselves on a pointed subject, not just on-topic comments on an article. I think it would be a great, great time-saver for everyone here. You might even catch some from the other camp coming here for information instead of disruption.
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.
Well… i, for one, am shocked… SHOCKED! that one of the usual suspects hasn’t chimed in to say WUWT should just go away.
Been here since the beginning. I can’t think of any improvement needed that hasn’t already been done….
Except, as one commenter already suggested… More Cowbell!!! 🙂
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
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
The science is of course what it all should be about, but it is now driven by politics and eco lobbyists.
I would like to see thought on economics and policy, etc.
A guest post from someone like Bjorn Lomborg would be fantastic.. He has never been sceptical of AGW itself, just the economics of policy and consequences of the environmentalists dream of 80-90% reductyion of co2, effectively de-industrilasation –
Which for many hardcore environmentalists is the goal, whether AGW is true or not..
I could agree to disagree with Bjorn I’m sure about AGW, and discuss policy and economic consequences.
In my view the science got left behind a long time ago. Sceptical blogs need to rebut, explain the science, but I think the bigger issue now and more pressing, is policy (particulary energy policy) and the economic consequences of it all.
The general public are still largely oblivious to the blogs (amongst virtually everyone I know in the real world) and if the public come across WUWT, Realclimategate, Deltoid, Bishop Hill, Dot Earth, etc they do not know who to believe..
However, the public do feel able to have an opinion on policy which effect their lives, which is the way in for many for sceptical debate. Even environmentalists have started to question bio-fuels, carbon trading, carbon offsets, etc. If you do not have to say you disagree with AGW, you can be VERY sceptical and critical of the politics and economic policies
In the UK we have an Energy gap coming, coal fired power stations to be shut by 2015, because they do not meet EU CO2 emission criteria, and nuclear powerstations reaching end of life. About 30% of base load.. ANd nothing engineerinly/technologicall credible to fill the gap (in 4 years time)
Yet because of the Catastrophic version of the AGW delusion that has gripped all political parties in the UK and Europe, we have a massive, hugely expensive dash to wind which can only fail.
No new clean coal or nuclear (purely because the environmentalist have predudice against nuclear.) No new mahanten style project for thorium generators or investment in fusion research, just issuing and selling of carbon permits for businesses
Whilst the general public may know little about the hockey stick, or feedbacks, etc.. they can see rising energy bill, windfarms that don’t work and a major problem ahead..
France for example generated 80% of its electricity from nuclear, the UK public might ask why can’t we….?
And at some point they will not accept being hysterically called a ‘climate change denier’, for asking this very sensible question and the politicians will have to face this.
I came to Watts Up when the climategate news story broke on the bigger blogs..(19-20th November 2009)
I’ve been a member of an internet forum for about 12 years in the UK.
I was like everybody else just a member of the public, that was sort of lukewarm on AGW, paid my CO2 related taxes (car, eletricity mainly) and just thought some of the greenpeace, al gore stuff was over the top. But had never really thought about it.
One day a post, in the News, Politics and Economics section caught my eye..
Climate Change – Cat out of the bag- a regular commentator said he had just seen this story, and if true – WOW. And he linked to Watts Up With That. I downloaded the FOIA2009.zip file and the rest is histroy, and here I am now, after thousands of comments on blogs all over the place and an occasional guest author here, with my own blog
At the time, I was amazed as the media completely ignored it, and in many cases waved it away, or even actively span against it. I learnt that Comment is NOT free (guardian), but heavily moderated/censored and I was deleted at all sorts of places (I was always polite) from the Guardian, Labour and Conservative official mainstream blogs.
As an observation:
As an occasional guest author now, the only feedback really is via the comments in the blogs. I’m sure many more people read the articles than actually comment on (true I’m sure for all blogs)
It would be nice to give some mechanism to get feedback from those that do not comment..
Perhaps a facebook/twitter styel LIKE button?
ie some articles with masses of comments (ie a fierce debate amongst a few) may be thought to be popular, others with relatively few comments might not, but possibly some get few comments but are widely liked and receive more traffic.
To get a feel for popular areas of discussion, a like or recommend button might capture more feedback
On Guest Authors:
Analysis by Economics professore on policy (Ross Mckitric, forexample,) or someone like Roger Pielke Junir, I think would make excellent more regular guest authors, and more credible in the eyes of the Main Stream Media, than people like myself..
Or even some other sceptical bloggers might get out and about a bit more.
😉 Though I hope their would still be room for my occasional mutterings 😉
Eventually,I think the newspapers and media and politicians will follow an every more sceptical general public, regarding economic policy..
Ie why are the Chinese building so much coal and nuclear power… WHY can’t we?
I meant CTM, of course. I also understand completely about your problem with spelling etc with children and a spouse diverting your attention.
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
I think mods are too heavy-handed when, well, you just have to say what you think 😀
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.