Introspection is always a good thing, and with that in mind, the suggested topic today – what could we do better at WUWT? Some background first.
I get lots of requests to change things, do things differently, or if you listen to some people, just shut down altogether; because they simply can’t tolerate an opinion contrary to their own views that gets as much attention as WUWT does.
One of the great things (or not so great depending on your viewpoint) about running a successful enterprise like this is that it now has other blogs dedicated solely to taunting that success, much like Obama has invoked taunting more than half of the citizens of the United States who have a different view from him on climate change. I see such blog spawn ( I need to update that page as there are more now) as a measure of success; flak, target, and all that.
A few caveats about things I can’t change right now that I often get asked about:
1. I can’t offer comment editing post facto, to do that I either need to spend $500/month to use the WordPress Enterprise feature (which I tried on invitation and decided it was not worth the price tag) or run on a self-hosted server. Since I don’t have time to chase down script kiddies and bot attacks like Lucia does, staying on WordPress.com is the only real option.
2. I can’t do research for people. Every day I get emails asking me to do research for questions, or go to some blog/newspaper/magazine and offer commentary to counter somebody in comments. I simply don’t have the time, I’m sorry.
3. I can’t change what ads popup on WUWT. They are entirely controlled by wordpress.com. That said, they are also contextually based on your browsing behavior. If you are getting ads that you think you should not be, chances are you’ve been pigeonholed for some reason. Clearing your browser cache/cookies always helps. That said, there was a rogue advertiser this past week that attempted to do re-directs. Alert readers alerted me, and I alerted the wordpress management who booted the advertiser.
4. Climategate 3 file dump: lots of people have looked at it, searched it, and scoured the output – there was nothing new there of any value.
Now that I’m asking you to air your opinions and ideas about what we could do better at WUWT, I’m going to air mine about those of you who comment here.
What I’d like to see different about readers and commenters on WUWT:
1. Saying “off topic” and then posting an off topic comment doesn’t actually make it OK. We have Tips and Notes (see menu below the header) for that.
2. I’d like to see less cryptic comments (like from Mosher) and more in-depth comments.
3. I’d like less name calling. The temptation is great, and I myself sometimes fall victim to that temptation. I’ll do better to lead by example in any comments I make.
4. I’d like to see less trolling and more constructive commentary. One way to acheive that is to pay attention
5. I’d like to see more click-throughs on science articles. I note that articles that discuss papers sometimes don’t get as many click-throughs as articles that discuss the latest climate inanity. While such things can be entertaining, bear in mind it is important to keep up with the science too.
So, tell me, what could we do better, do different, add, or remove from WUWT?
Please be thoughtful and respectful in such comments.
Thanks for your consideration – Anthony
Anthony:
I know that you can’t create posts from a significant portion of what comes into tips & notes, but I often find things in there that are every bit as topical and important (and in some cases more so) than what you do post. You might consider an addition to your right sidebar where you can drop some of the more interesting tips and notes without the need to create a post. It could be a scrolling window so it doesn’t take up too much space on screen. Maybe moderators could help choose a few “nuggets” to include there. Just a thought, FWIW.
No thanks on coordinating and unifying my critique and comments in this debate. I prefer my own specific path in this endeavor to critique existing science as well as its future directions according to my own education and understanding of the general topic and its subtopics.
For the guest posters – a very short biography outlining their qualifications on the subject they are writing about would be helpful. It would also add to the scientific credibility of the site in this world where anyone can blog about anything.
TimC is having a bunfight with my father so people will probably miss this comment he made:
This point shouldn’t be missed. Sadly, it is important.
And we would miss you terribly…
If something were to happen to our host, no doubt Steven Mosher would take it over and entertain us with a full measure of cryptic, drive-by mysteries.
/Mr Lynn
I must confess at the outset that, although I read the entire original post (a rare event), I’ve only read perhaps a fifth of the comments (still even rarer). It’s hard to make technical suggestions, because I don’t know enough about the constraints imposed by WordPress. One enhancement that would please me would be the ability to give thumbs up or down to a post (even just the first would be good).
But my main peeve, looking for reference at the title of the blog, is the myopic focus on climate. The “mysteries” of science don’t appear greatly discussed or presented. Perhaps this is due to the intimidating orthodoxy of the most aggressive posters, which reminds me of the stridency of a certain type of atheist who believes that atheism of necessity is incompatible with crediting supranatural (ie. as yet unexplained) sensory phenomena (ESP, clairvoyance, sometimes even UFOs). I remember asking my favourite high school teacher what he would think if he saw a UFO himself. He answered that he would think he had gone insane. I hope our scientific sensibility is so feeble…
What I would most like to see here though, is an open, unbiased discussion of the technical and social issues that most threaten our global society, and how we might best prepare defenses against them individually, as regional communities, and as nations and alliances, and in what priority. I find the constant sneering at “alarmists” tiresome and offensive, and sorely wish some of the presitgious poster would speak up against such essentially bullying behaviour.
“Bullying”? Surely you jest! Or did you forget that the Alarmists are the academic and government elite, including the President of the United States and his Science Advisor? Did you forget the stories of science faculty who dared to express a skeptical view of Anthropogenic Global Warming being shunned and driven out of their jobs? Did you forget the legions of graduate students who dare not say a word against the “Climate Change” orthodoxy, for fear of losing access to grants and even their degrees? Can David be charged with “bullying” Goliath?
“Alarmist” is too kind a label for these Inquisitors. A forum like WUWT is David’s stone.
/Mr Lynn
Some have made comments about people commenting using an alias. A valid point is that some use the alias to be able to “snipe” from cover. But some of those who do so do it, not so much to hide themselves but to protect themselves.
Some of you will trust that I’m not making this up but, where I work an email was sent out (I looked for it but couldn’t find it.) that basically was about a training that included AGW issues. The line I remember was about it being a guide to hiring. (I have a government job.) So there is a push for government employees to not just be “politically correct” but ‘environmentally correct”.
Just something to keep in mind.
PS I make a lot of attempts at humor here. I’ve even mentioned God and the Bible. (Horrors!!) Some may not consider my (or others) attempts at humor successful. But the strength of this site wasn’t built on censorship but rather openness … that stays within site policy, of course.
“Some have made comments about people commenting using an alias.” ~ Gunga Din
Yes indeed, some twit has called those who use an alias an “anonymous and cowardly troll”. This is mindlessly stupid. It shows that the fellow has no argument and can’t take on the words printed and must go after the man himself. I think there is a neat Latin phrase to describe such behavior.
I like Lord Monckton, but I would never use language like “anonymous and cowardly troll” to defend him. I would simply ask the fellow to witness this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
There are people who have family obligations who can be attacked in the real world if a comment here was brought to the attention of their employers. Should they be banned from here? That is up to the host I suppose.
Harry,
Thanks for the reply! Yes Word Press definitely has some work to do in the “make it work a bit better” department. They are currently the best for the price in the business. Not sure how long till they become old news and someone new offers a better deal and becomes the new king of the blog but its bound to happen. Have a good day!
v/r,
David Riser
@ur momisugly WarrenBonesteel In your articles, don’t trash talk anyone. Ever. Don’t just be professional. Set the standard for professionalism. Just present what the other side said and then present the facts. e.g. ‘He/they said…’ then, ‘Here are the facts & here are the references and resources.’
________
That would be quite dry and boring and rob his articles of all his humor which I very much appreciate. Even in a classroom, if a professor would teach as you suggest it would be a very dull class as well as a chore to be done, not enjoyed. He has a great sense of humor and I don’t consider it “trash talk” at all. Trash talk is vicious and he is never that. Rather, he is interesting and his humor adds to that interest and to the pleasure of reading the articles. I hope that your advice is not taken. Sorry, different people, different tastes.
@Grant I’d like to be able to reply directly to a comment and/or read a thread of replies. I think it would focus discussion.
______
I could not agree more. It gets very confusing in the present format and the comments and replies are disjointed and confusing. It is also annoying to have to jump from the comment to the bottom of the page to reply and the reply can be so far away from the original comment as to be meaningless or, at the least, very perplexing.
Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval):
I write to use the Eschenbach admonition; viz. “Quote what I said if you want to dispute it”.
At June 16, 2014 at 4:32 pm you write
NO, INDEED NOT!
From your context I infer that I am the “some twit” whose words you have misrepresented because at June 15, 2014 at 3:57 pm I replied to Jeff Alberts by saying
That does NOT show “the fellow has no argument and can’t take on the words printed and must go after the man himself”. On the contrary: it IS an argument, and it provides an assessment of the source of derogatory personal remarks together with a real-world illustration.
TimC then demonstrated the truth, accuracy and veracity of both my argument and my illustration in his subsequent posts. Indeed, he demanded that I debate his interpretation of UK Constitutional Law pertaining to Lord Monckton.
I rebutted that nonsense with factual response at June 16, 2014 at 10:27 am where I wrote in total
Your post I am answering also insists that I discuss the matter and cites a Connolley-approved wicki account which you want me to address.
Although you are not anonymous, my answer to TimC applies.
Richard
@RobRoyWUWT community should welcome some “trolls” and bring them to the flock.
Seeking to learn the facts is why I first came here.
_______
You sound like you are a remarkably kind person and patient. If someone is seeking knowledge, I agree with you. However, I have never met a troll who wanted knowledge or would even respond to facts presented. They seem to make statements that are grossly inaccurate and then never, ever respond to absolute facts no matter how many times they are presented to them. Then, in the next post or the next day, they make the same statement. Sigh. I admire your patience and for trying. I don’t have the same faith i them that you have, I guess.
One last comment. I would appreciate the ability to recommend posts.
I am not a scientist, so I feel it would give me a clue as to what is sound information and what is not. I had college science courses my first time through, and really didn’t understand much of anything. It was not exactly vital for a degree in sociology as I was going to save the world. I was disabused of the notion that the world had any particular desire to be saved fairly quickly by me or anyone else.
Eventually, I returned to college to become a healthcare provider (respiratory therapy) and took many science courses and, to my amazement, loved them all. However, I am not at the level or anywhere near it of that of many here. Recommendations would assist me in separating the wheat from the chaff as I am not confident in my own abilities in this area.
I do wish I had not been afraid of science when I was young as I do love it so. Well, I am enjoying it now and have since I became much more knowledgeable. I thank you for this site and appreciate all of you very much.
Anthony Watts: “I note that articles that discuss papers sometimes don’t get as many click-throughs as articles that discuss the latest climate inanity. While such things can be entertaining, bear in mind it is important to keep up with the science too.”
I agree with that sentiment. In fact, it was precisely that sentiment that spurred me recently to submit a proposed post directed to eliciting a more-substantive discussion of a paper by Velasco et al. According to my reading, that paper says that, although Hans Jelbring was wrong about lapse rate, Robert Brown’s attempted refutation wasn’t exactly correct, either.
Anthony Watts: “I’d like to see . . . more in-depth comments.”
We’ve had some discussion of the paper on this site, but it was superficial, presumably because of the paper’s intimidating math. By that post I intended to walk through the math as a way of inviting physicists here to identify the precise step where they think the paper goes wrong. That exercise might have raised questions of statistical, theoretical, and perhaps even quantum mechanics that some of us laymen would have found more enlightening than the latest venting over CAGW inanities.
Anthony Watts: “I’d like less name calling.”
Unfortunately (or fortunately, since there were things in the proposed post that I’d write differently now), Mr. Watts refused to post that submission, dismissing the Velasco et al. paper as “junk.” As far as I can tell, his only basis that assessment was that it had been brought to my attention at Tallbloke’s Talkshop. True, that site entertains some notions that are, well, speculative. But I would have hoped the paper could have been judged on its logic, not its provenance.
The purpose of this comment is not to get that submission be posted; in fact, I’d rather it not be, since there are things I’d change in it. The purpose instead is to point out that some of what Mr. Watts professes to want could be achieved if he’d tighten up his game. If you want substance you have to be open to substance.
Poptech says:
June 16, 2014 at 6:56 am
I suppose I should come clean and admit that all I have is a BSEE, and about the only EE-ish thing I’ve designed and built was something to pulse the non-maskable interrupt line on a Z80. Clearly I’m incompetent to comment here on things outside of climate system feedbacks on things that can be modeled as electronic components.
There are a number of people who are knowledgable about several fields, and the climate discussion covers so much territory there’s space for most everyone. Just because someone has a PhD in English does not imply he can’t learn something about the scientific method. One of Sally Ride’s first degrees was a BA in English, so Mosh has good company. (She eventually got a PhD in Physics, so that’s evidence that earning an English degree doesn’t destroy the science processing parts of your brain.)
If you limit the debate to climate scientists actively producing NSF-sponsered research, you’d get something like RealClimate, remember them?
“Just because someone has a PhD in English does not imply he can’t learn something about the scientific method.”
Ric, no it is even worse than that, he doesn’t have a PhD in English but claimed to.
richardscourtney (2:52 am): Great answer. We’re all aware of habitual misdirections within the climate scene – the most obvious being alarmist spinmeisters taking any attribution of warming to man as agreement that the world is going to end next Tuesday, as Lindzen puts it. But there’s another one within climate blogs displayed by Mark Stoval here: you criticise one person using a pseudonym and you stand accused of having written off all pseudonymous contributors. Thus the weasel words:
But the very next sentence is accurate:
The similarity of the misdirections at the two levels is a reason I assume more closeness between such actors than is generally assumed.
Here’s my suggestion: encourage those who post graphics not to use horrible, low-quality jpeg images which are very difficult to read. Especially for line drawings or graphs (as opposed to photographs), png format should be used, or zero-loss jpeg. Doing so will greatly improve the readability of any article containing such graphs.
I’d like to see a link under the “Resources” tab to Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT (really good index)and a link to a page dedicated to newbie introduction to climate, climate change, and skeptics with links to some of WUWT’s best articles for introduction purposes.
I would nominate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/the-reef-abides/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-and-al-gores-unwarranted-call-for-intellectual-tyranny/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
[I think you will find the link to Ric’s excellent blog on the home page, but hey, you can never have too many links to good stuff . . mod]
I will repeat my suggestions from May 18
Is there anyway to search/list by rating? [and number of votes]
I would still like to see a “Watts Best” menu item or Category to list the 5-10% of the exceptional pages.
Thank god for Google! I can put my name into the search bar along with wattsupwiththat and a couple of key words and I can find almost anything I may have read in the past four years and commented upon. I may even have used the phrase “Watts’ Best” in the search bar to find those great post that way.
But it seems to me, it would be far better to add a “Watts’ Best” Category or Tag Item so that it would be easy to tell and show others the Best posts in WUWT as an introduction to what WUWT is all about.
===============================================================
I’ve found some of my old comments that way but my alias happens to be the same as a famous poem and movie.
It would be nice to be able to search across post but, even if WordPress offers that, I would [not] want our host and the mods to have to pay extra for it in money or time.
TYPO!!
“It would be nice to be able to search across post but, even if WordPress offers that, I would want our host and the mods to have to pay extra for it in money or time.”
Should be:
“It would be nice to be able to search across post but, even if WordPress offers that, I wouldn’t want our host and the mods to have to pay extra for it in money or time.”
John West says:
June 17, 2014 at 10:43 am
> I’d like to see a link under the “Resources” tab to Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT (really good index)
Thanks. I’m not certain which I would prefer. Probably the status quo – the graphic link on the right-side nav bar is visible on every page, but even so it’s accessed only a dozen times each day. Were it tucked under resources, it would be out of sight and used only by people actively exploring or are fond enough of it to remember it.
Putting stuff on the resources pull down argues for putting the content on WUWT, and there are some reasons to do that. I haven’t asked for access rights to that area of WUWT, and some of my notes on HTML have already been copied to the Test page but are out-of-date and unimproved by a discussion about unequal signs. (BTW, mods, the comments on the test page can be discarded any day now!)
Some stuff can’t be hosted at WordPress, as there’s no official way to get files to WordPress via a script. My scripts at home prepare the Tables of Content and FTPs them to one of my web sites along with my updated guide. So that would have to be a link off a new resources page.