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.
What I like about WUWT is that the moderation is tolerant of a wide range of views and styles. Humour can be as convincing as partial differential equations. I also like the fact that WUWT talks about more than just climate.
I would recommend a Rubbish Bin for any comments that are deleted by moderators, so that from time to time all can see what is deleted. For example, I find it very instructive that RC deletes any comments that praise Judith Curry or her blog. RC must have blown a gasket to learn WUWT has been nominated for science blog of the year.
I’d not change a thing. I really appreciate all the content, and look forward to checking WUWT several times a day…
It’s a lonely occupation, being a liberal climate skeptic. My friends think I’m a quack, my family too. Can’t tell you how much I not only enjoy, but need this site, which is far and away my favorite among the skeptical blogs…
Just came across this quote from Al Gore on Dr. Spencer’s site: “There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it’s no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere.”
That’s so infuriating, so patently, blatantly dishonest, so morally deficient, that it’s enough to make a grown man weep with frustration…What I’m trying to say in my awkward way is:
Please Keep Up The Good Work.
One thing I would recomend is a spelll chek and edit function.
As a long time, non scientific reader what a privilege to be able to access your site daily from the depths of country New South Wales to keep up to date on this vitally interesting topic. Do not change anything in this well balanced blog.
Thank you Anthony, both for this opportunity and the website.
Overall this is probably the best website I visit for balance, content and appearance. The large contribution from all the readers and the excellent effort by those who keep the wheels on, is amazing. It has been a wonderful place to learn and to get a better understanding of all the issues.
Although I rarely comment, I visit daily. I have in the past suggested there may be an opportunity created here, based on how the site is managed. Some of the content at WUWT could justifiably be at a level worthy of journal status. The rapid and sometimes cutting review process offered by all the knowledgeable and sometimes disagreeing people, is a peer review process that is beyond almost any journal. If the articles could be updated in response, where appropriate, to address the issues raised and formally presented in the resources section as updated peer reviewed papers/essays/articles, this will add a valuable and credible resource. I realize this would be additional work and that your time and resources are limited, but as WUWT has in many ways become the central platform for those questioning the climate change machine, its process and conclusions, it may be worth considering a WUWT Journal of sorts. It could become a place where people can publish their work without crashing into the discredited review process of many of the journals and provide researchers as well as the interested public with a reliable resource for basing their positions on.
An opportunity this may be, but in the face of limited resource in its many forms, it might not be possible to realize. WUWT is a great resource already, thank you and your team for all your efforts.
” As an example, the Lehman Bros. collapse shows the need for government to keep corporate interests from running completely amok. ”
Off topic, but I can’t help but feel that big government protects the folks at the top that made out like bandits during the financial collapse. When it costs $100 million to run an election campaign for a job that pay $100 thousand a year, you know there is something rotten going on.
You are entitled to your own opinion.
You are not entitled to your own facts!
– Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (NY)
Seems to me that most places give us opinion-developed facts, instead of fact-developed opinion, as you and the contributors of WUWT display on every page. Thank you, Anthony.
Been coming here since found your early work on the surface stations. Have been writing to Australian politicians before that querying their policies.
What I would like to see is a page with the temperatures put up as they used to be, ie showing the actual temperatures of high and low as per the John Daly site. (by the way, you do not have a link to his blog, it is important for historical purposes).
What is not realised by most people, is that all this temperature anomaly, is just the variation from an artificial construct of a so called mean or average temperature of a particular period of years.
I use the site to keep up with the latest scientific reports refuting the AGW hypothesis. By doing this, you are providing “balance” as there are billions being spent on promoting this scam.
You do not therefore, need to spend your time and money, assisting them in their promotion.
Stick to your good brand of honestly showing the alternative side of the debate, and do not go wandering off.
Remember that all many people know about sceptics is that they are nasty people. Just by showing that they are not, is reason enough for this blog.
I also use the site to introduce friends to the alternate point of view. Do not confuse newcomers by putting up AGW promotional pieces as articles.
You have no obligation to give air to tricksters and fraudsters and carpet baggers of the environmental/green movements, or even those who are nice but misguided (ie Curry). Be nice but don’t give air.
Don’t dilute your brand.
Be firmer with trolls, and keep people on topic more as does Steve M at Climate Audit.
Have a separate page for political comments and it would be a great help if the US commenters realised that this is a world wide blog now, and that Liberal means different things politically in different countries. eg. A Liberal in Australia is not a socialist.
I too would like to have the ability to reply to someone just underneath where they make the original comment. I see some comments here that this is bad. Would someone explain to me what is bad about it as I can’t see it. Is it something to do with the moderation? Please explain further on this.
Don’t dilute your brand.
Harold Pierce Jr says:
February 20, 2011 at 2:52 pm
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”.
Yes, it is terribly disconcerting.
Perhaps we should all use:
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, ….
Looks soooooo much better.
/grin
Mods my comment has gone awry again so let me add that a list of the good guys should somehow be automatic. I find it annoying that my comments seem to end up in the bin all the time unless I notify you.
[Reply: comment rescued & posted – even before I had read this comment. Sorry about your posts ending up in the spam folder. WordPress has some strange glitches. I can see if another moderator put your post into spam. They didn’t, so I assume it was WordPress. ~dbs, mod.]
Don’t know how to improve unique for content and variety of views and up to date news and general ambience, and very patient mods, and only niggle covered by others already, numbering of posts if wordpress supports this.
Much appreciated from someone without a science background, but can see how this has become a great resource for those who have. The simplicity of the lay-out makes it a very user friendly discussion forum to read, wish more would make sense from the organic growth of their experiences..
All the best to you all.
I don’t know if this is relevant to the present discussion, but no-one has come up with a good name for adherents of the CAGW hypothesis. I suggest Lysenkoists. Trofin Lysenko was an agronomist in Russia who believed in the Lamarckian concept of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In the late 1920’s he proposed methods of rearing crops based on this. He promised two crops where one had grown before. Stalin, who had largely destroyed Soviet agriculture with his policy of collectivisation, eagerly seized on his ideas and Lysenko rose high in Stalin’s councils. Geneticists who argued against Lysenko’s ideas were either executed or sent to prison camps. In 1948 Kruschev described genetics as ” a bourgeois pseudoscience “and its study was banned till the mid 1960’s.
Lysenkoism can be defined as the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion, as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Does this definition sound as if it fits?
Jim Davidson
Anthony,
As I read through all these comments a couple of additional thoughts occurred to me. Please don’t try to filter out the politics. AGW is as much (if not more) a political debate than it is a scientific one. If I wanted pure science I would go over to Climate Audit until I was sufficiently convinced that I have no idea what these guys are talking about. This is not unusual. Those outside the medical professions quite often experience their eyes glazing over during discussions or presentations that are outside their scope of expertise. Politics and public policy are at the heart of the AGW fraud and at the heart of debate.
A lot of regulars to this site love Anthony Watts. You share with your readers and accordingly your readers develop an affinity and affection for Anthony Watts. You don’t (and won’t) see this with Joe Romm. We feel like we “know” Anthony Watts. You’re a ham. We know about your hearing disability. We know you have kids. You’ve told us about your wife’s health. We know about your pets. For the regular reader Anthony Watts is a “real person”, someone with whom we feel we know and can empathize. This is no mean trick. This is artful skill. You won’t find this at other sites. I’ve never met you yet you are someone I’d love to take to lunch if you’re ever in Santa Fe.
I feel at home, relaxed and comfortable at this site. I would estimate that better than 95% of your comments are cordial, polite and respectful. Your replies to some that are not are priceless. I’m no climatologist. I have the tedious job of taking care of sick people. I became intensely interested in AGW in about 2005 and started reading everything I could get my hands on. Of all the sites out there this one offers the best balance. I think I learn something new here just about every day.
Recently a comment thread veered off into evolution. Shucks, I hadn’t thought about evolution in decades. The resulting thread and comments were absolutely fascinating. Like the abiotic theory of petroleum, it was something I had not really considered. This is good. This sort of thing keeps the site fresh and interesting.
In short there’s little you do to change something so successful and well liked…except consider numbering the comments.
Dave
Anthony,
Great blog with superb moderation.
I don’t know how you manage to do it.
My one complaint is that your postings are so frequent that it is hard to keep up ;-).
Love the Reference Pages.
Is there a page that summarises all the current arguments and positions>
Dear Anthony,
Looking back through all these comments, must make you think you’re sorry you asked!
But like others have said, “it aint broke, so don’t fix it”.
One small thing though, I know how you are often irritated by pedants, over spelling, grammar etc., (I too often have flutterbingers), but pedantry is what has got us in front of AGW. I don’t know Steve M or Ross M, but I bet like me they are both pedants. If they hadn’t insisted on seeing the data, the warmists might never have been found out. So let’s here it for the pedants once in a while.
Anthony, the real strength of your blog is in the commenters. Sure, there are the usual trolls, but many of the people who contribute are serious and knowledgeable. There is nothing like them in the threads of your “competitors”.
I come to this web site daily just because I never know what you are going to post. Very scientific things abound, as do politically leaning posts, and some rather whimsical items that always amuse the inquisitive mind. I am not a scientist, just an engineer, so my perpective may be different than others. I hear your plea on Facebook, but it can and does become a time sucking monster that is really not worth much.
Nope.
“Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal.”
;p
WUWT has great content. I use it regularly as a reference on AGW and other climate issues. However, I do find the site difficult to navigate. I’ve found the Thesis theme — at http://www.pearsonified.com/themes — flexible and easy to use. You might want to consider the “teaser” format — see my implementation of it http://whistleblowercentral.com — to improve reader access to your material.
Anthony,
I know a fair bit about web development, and I think your WordPress platform and the theme you use are solid, both visually and as something to interact with. I’d bet the recommendation for “joomla” was a joke. WP is clean, clear, and solid, and gets regular updates. It doesn’t do everything, it just does what you need it to do 90% of the time. The theme author will (probably) keep that updated as well.
You can always link to a separate “page” on your server with custom (whatever)ML code on it, if you need something unusual. You can probably just toss up a request here to find some of us who can cobble up near anything you’d need, too.
I don’t think the trolls are much of a problem here, at all. Most of the discussion is fairly level-headed, compared to other sites. Your moderator(s?) are doing a solid job, too.
Besides, the most important thing in the world of creativity is this: content is king. That’s where you have it nailed down quite solidly, and that’s why we keep coming here.
I’ll ask a question about that: in your older archives, is the material still accessible, or does it fall off the web? Your site is too valuable with regard to research, so I’d hope the articles (link rot and all) stay available.
I’d like to see:
– Numbered comments
– Like & Dislike a Comment via PollDaddy
–
Anthony-
First, thank you for WUWT. I have been a reader for about a year now. I’m with the “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” crowd.
That said, I do wish I could edit my comments. I am a lousy speller (thanks to the “word recognition” educational philosophy of the 1940’s) and an even worse typist. I have taken to composing my comments in my word processing program, them copying into the comment block. Not everything translates, however.
Like Pamela Gray, I am old school. I don’t know how to use all the internet technology, but I can still think and reason. I am not even sure what html is, let alone how to use it. I have looked for “Ric Werme’s guide to WUWT” but couldn’t find it.
Other comments:
1. I don’t think you need to number comments. Each one has a time stamp. What better numbering system could a person want.
2. I would vote against listing the comments as threads. It’s great if two people want to have their own private discussion with each other, but to me it makes the general flow harder to follow.
3. One of the things I like best is reading the comments from people around the world. There is nothing that compares with seeing the situation through the eyes of those actually in the situation. For example, the post on the NB wind farm freezing up. I looked first at the comments from people actually living in NB.
In summary, Thanks for your hard work. You can see from all the comments, it is greatly appreciated.
As others have already written, the signal to noise ratio in the comments is low. I don’t like heavy moderation either. Maybe commenters could be asked to classify their own comments into groups such as:
1. serious science discussion
2. newby questions and answers
3. politics and cheer-leading
Then if there was a way for the reader to filter which groups he sees, comments would be much more useful.
Anthony, I like you just the way you are! Thanks to you most especially and to your associates, too. I am certain it takes a whale of a lot of work to create and maintain a blog of this caliber. I particularly enjoy the more “hard” science posts where concepts are explained with their mathematical backing and the experimental data. Sometimes my eyes glaze over, but to learn with the best of the best is exhilarating. If I disagree or think something is not “science enough”, as you know, I am not shy to say so. That doesn’t mean I think I’m right so you keep right on posting what you choose.
My two desires, if you choose to add anything, are: 1. A few more “hard science” posts per week (e.g., Chuck Wiese, Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer — also Forbush Decrease and even Wind Power Fail); and 2. Develop a topic in a peer-review fashion. Somone take a separate element of that topic, explain the different hypotheses/theories and define a falsification. Ask a few specialists to join in with a back-and-forth. Then let your huge international group of peer reviewers debate. I would love to see the outcome of a very public discussion like this.
Thanks for asking.