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
Anthony, you do a great job. Keep up the good work and thank you. No particular comments on the technology and process. Here are a few comments on the content and overall theme of your blog.
“WUWT and its place in the climate debate.”
1) WUWT – thoughtful, science driven, respectful debate and testing of ideas.
2) APG SKEPTICISM does NOT equal ANTI-ENVIRONMENT, ANTI SCIENCE.
I’d like to see a stronger theme (more frequent reminders, separate posts and articles and links) around this idea as I struggle with it and wonder if others may too.
I believe our modern, consumer-driven, affluent lifestyles too often result in our not being good stewards of God’s green earth. We can be skeptical of the narrow focus on GHG reduction as somehow the only way to save our planent, while still being mindful that we would do well to increase our true environmentalism and become better stewards.
Put another way, are their ways to learn from the best of the AGW proponents ideas? Can we remember to not stoop to demeaning the other side as “warmists” in the same way they do us as “deniers”?
Joe Dunfee says: February 20, 2011 at 9:54 am
You have a lot of content here. Some of it is in the comments, but there is way too much for me to read through.
Personally, I would like a way to distinguish the political comments from the scientifically oriented.
First, Anthony – you do an absolute … and I mean ABSOLUTELY superb job.
Here’s a few suggestions:
1. I’d love to be able to edit my posts – I often miss closing brackets and closing html.
2. I’d second the post above. There’s few articles that aren’t worth reading, but some are here-today-gone-tomorrow (political) and other’s would be nice to have around for months.
3. A climate wiki – I tried starting one myself – I think you’d be crazy to start one given the climate wars on wiki-paeda – but I think it would be useful to have a permanent record of the current state of REAL science (i.e. all the evidence and not wikipedia’s: only evidence that is pro-warming).
4. The other thing which would be good, would a discussion forum with threads so that you can post a reply to specific posts – but I suspect that isn’t possible.
I think you’ve got the mix just about right.
Real experts on tap.
Intelligent moderators tolerant of pedestrians like me.
Good variety of topics.
That’s why WUWT is number 1.
I think the approach to and standard of moderation on WUWT is about right.
I believe it is the most important feature for any blog to both allow alternate views, and for the moderation process to be completely transparent, which is the case here.
An example of poor moderation is Skeptical Science where the process is biased against anyone offering alternate views to the regular bloggers there, but also the moderators regularly moderate threads they are participants in and use their position, and the moderation panel, to both censure those they are debating against, and to push their own interpretation.
I know it may be difficult at times if there are limited people available to act as moderators, but I believe one of the fundamental principles of any moderation process is for the moderator to separate their role as a moderator from any views they may have on the subject, or refrain from moderating if they want to debate the issue at hand.
Thank you Anthony for the philosophy behind the standards you have set here, it is not broken and so does not need fixing..
1) I’ve been disappointed sometimes when comments dry-up right at an interesting point; it seems because the lead article has disappeared off the bottom of the page. I think it would be good if the post introductions could be shortened because they proliferate so rapidly that “dropping off the page” comes too early sometimes.
2) Comment numbering would be nice, providing any retrospective deletions or whatnot don’t occur.
Tom in Florida says:
February 20, 2011 at 10:34 am …. ¨You also give us a window into what people of other countries think. And that is one of the best benefits of visiting this site. I have learned more about Australia and how it works than I ever could have bar living there myself.¨
Thank you: great contribution.
I read for news, explanations, and links.
Please consider a Spanish ´section.´ I speak only Southern US English, but reside in Central America; boat-loads of mis-information slosh about in Latin America. Reliable Ibero-American resources could benefit everyone.
Why fix what ain’t broke?
It’s a wonderful site. I can’t always read very long articles and streams of comments, but what I do read is fascinating.
Please don’t alter the font size; it’s great for older people! I had cataract surgery last year and my eyes tire more quickly than they did when I was younger. It is a much easier blog to read than others I visit.
This blog also loads more quickly than most; a blessing in this area of very iffy and variable broadband speeds.
I have sometimes given a link to WUWT on another (PC and warmist) Australian site. I cannot stomach the idea of either Twitter or Facebook…sorry!
Best wishes Anthony, and don’t burn yourself out, and thank you.
Annei
It is great as it is, most changes offered all have more negatives than plusses, maybe Im just cynical??
Anthony,
To date you have had over 70 million visitors to this site. Why do they come here? Because what they find is good stuff.
There are guest posts, there are conflicting opinions which get discussed in civil terms (unlike almost every other blog concerned with “climate”) and the comment moderation has achieved a level of consideration which other sites would be urged to emulate. I especially like the “48 hours sin bin” that you have adopted, not banning, just slowing down and making people think for a while.
Don’t change anything. You’ve got it right.
My only concern is for you as a person; you are trying to run the most popular climate blog in the entire world. Don’t burn out, please. The reactions of everyone who read about your son’s efforts in the very important model-car race show how we think of you; your wife’s recent indisposition likewise garnered sympathy from around the globe, all of it heartfelt.
Keep WUWT as it is, it does not need improving.
All that is needed is assurance that you, the originator and driver of this site, can keep up with the incredible demands on your time and your life.
PS How’s the cat settled in? Enquiring minds need to know!
As for trolls? Meh!
I don’t like the font because it has fine lines (e.g., “e”) and serifs and the words are hard for me to read. I would prefer a constant-width Helvetica which would make columns of data in a comment line up properly.
Format and style: too busy or easy to read and use?
You have the very best there is.
Clean, crisp and clear. Google and the N Y Times are my benchmarks for web format, and WUWT rates alongside both for me.
Dear Anthony,
never change a running system!!!
Please, don’t change anything. Keep up the excellent work and thanks to all contributors. I enjoy to check your site several times a day. (Thanks for sharing your SSD experience, that was great.)
Best regards Eberhard
I’ve been reading WUWT more than daily for a year and a half now. I enjoy the way you’ve been managing the blog. I, like others have mentioned, do not like the wordpress blogs. But, I understand your reservations over changing.
My primary use of WUWT is as a reference. I do read the commentary. Many of the comments effectively elaborate, clarify and constructively criticise the postings. They can be just as important as the articles.
As has been mentioned a couple of times before, the refinement of the posts and commentary content into wiki would be invaluable. I don’t live in the climate domain. I don’t remember many details. I often find myself wanting to dig for more information on a subject after reading the posts. It’s difficult to troll the web for that information. You’ve got a strong community here. I think you would quickly develop a world-class climate and weather wiki with very minimal effort in management.
Lots of comments and most good too. I think you have it about right. It is easy to read and thoughtfully laid out. The moderators do a good job and perhaps we don’t say thank you to them as often as we should. WUWT is and has been successful. So it is not a good idea to mess to much with success. Evolution not revolution.
You are condemned as a liar by a number of proAGW blogs, like ScienceBlogs. That means you are doing a great job, a vitally important job, otherwise they would just ignore you.
Keep up the GREAT work!!
Climate Audit uses the nested threads, and I’ve found them generally confusing – Anthony
It’s reassuring to known that I’m not the only one to have experienced that.
I would like to see an expansion of the glossary, into an encyclopedia of climate basics and specific refutations of various alarmist dogma. It would be very convenient to make my “appeal to authority” a link to WUWT when responding to emails or posting on other site. I have a few key threads bookmarked – but a single repository would be a great help.
It could be a wiki; with the keys given to a few trusted souls, to minimize your workload.
Beyond that, I think you have a lot more influence at WordPress then you think. Having this premier blog hosted by them has been mentioned to me twice when I was discussing other matters with them. If you want a minor tweak to the engine, I think they will accommodate you.
About the only format/usability issue that comes to mind for me is a mean to help read long threads on mobile devices: 1) option to read newest messages first, and/or 2) split long threads – a “more tool”. This would especially be helpful on the “Tips” thread.
Anthony, your work is an epiphenomenon. History is flowing through it, and I am proud to be part of it. I can see the wartime strategy in keeping going, keeping the news flowing, every day. There is always, but always, the pleasure of looking at something fresh. And gradually, I see my own understanding, and that of everyone else, maturing, deepening, broadening.
Many of us have been looking for the “Churchill” of this “virtual” war. Perhaps he’s closer than we thought, just in a different form to what we had imagined. You seem to carry both that stamina, readiness with words, deep courtesy, hands-on knowledge, and committment.
After WWII, leading Nazis said we had a weapon we could not match. It was, they believed, called the Silent Minute. This was a minut of silence every evening at 9pm on the BBC broadcasting the striking of Big Ben. I think it was also key in people not burning out. I don’t want to sound funny, but could we have something like that in WUWT? – call it “burnout protection” for you Anthony. Your work is very important.
The most extraordinary of my experiences with WUWT has been the ongoing serendipitous synchronicities. It might flag for a few days and I draw back, then it comes forth again, fresh and incredible as ever. Always makes me feel that Great Spirit is watching over all of us – if we pay attention.
I see two developments that would help the “maturation” process and make material readily available for both newcomers and opponents.
First, a “FAQ for warmists” – preferably able to counter all Skeptical Science’s issues. Needs to be crowdsourced. How to construct such a project? Wiki? Several posts? I’ve been working on the wiki idea anyway – when I have time, after reading all the blog posts.
Second, introductory material for newcomers and beginners. Something. Anything. I’ve updated my Primer recently (click my name), though I am open to suggestions for improvement, if reasonably feasible – and would be proud if you felt you could make use of it. And not offended if not.
Anthony, I only can add my respect for the tremendous amount of work you have done for this site and the way it is moderated, allowing a lot of comment from each side, only moderating when things get really out of hand. I hope you and the other moderators can manage this for years to come.
Please no changes which make the format less readable (it is fine like it is). Only a small wish, if possible: an after the publication editing possibility to correct (formatting) errors during a limited time…
I also don’t like the way numbers are displayed: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. The 0, 1 and 2 are too small while 6, 7, 8 and 9 are too big. The 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 drop down too much. The 6 and 8 appear to “float”.
My recommendation is that you close this monstrosity and share the internet with the rest of the blogs/websites!!!
Honestly, I’ve got nothing. I like it just the way it is.
OK. A few comments…
Firstly, please do not even think about switching to inline comments like Climate Audit and Judith Curry’s blog. It complicates the issues, and it invites bickering and off-topic matters.
Secondly, it would help tremendously if comments were spread over a number of pages, or if it gave you an option to see all comments at once or in separate pages. As it is, a hundred-comment-thread is difficult to keep track of. Especially as new comments are added. Bishop Hill keeps his threads at 40 comments per page. 50 per page would be a good number. The Guardian CiF does it 50.
And thirdly, it would be great if WUWT offered more news and commentary from other scientific fields. There is a lot more “puzzling things in life” than those WUWT specialises in.
Other than these I have nothing to offer but praise. This is quite an amazing blog. I don’t mind if the number of posts are 5 or 6 a day. This provides more choice to decide which comments thread I should allocate my time. Honestly, I don’t read all posts and all comments. That would be too intensive and too time consuming. I am quite surprised how Anthony and his moderation team manage to stay on the ball, day in day out. I salute their stamina.
This has been said before but needs to be said again. The moderation policy at WUWT is quite exceptional in the blogosphere. For all those few of you who complain about what happened to their brilliant thoughts, if it wasn’t deleted/omitted by genuine accident or misunderstanding, then there usually is a valid reason why it was held back or snipped.
As a lurker and an occasional commenter for the last 18 months or so, I’ve had only one comment snipped, and another taken down. Although I was not happy, I believe both comments were snipped/deleted for valid reasons. The sarcasm and irony wasn’t picked up, I think.
The WUWT team have a great sense of humour and they are mostly on the ball. It is just that I don’t like using “/sarc”. That’s the one and only concession that I’m not prepared to make to WUWT. There are some things you just never do. I’d rather risk snipping and deletion than use “/sarc”. I’m prepared to eat the time-out without complaint.
Ain’t broke. Don’t fix.
Purpose, content and form are all appropriate.
Enjoying it every day. Keep going.
And … thank you.