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
bruce:
And time-traveler? WUWT began on 17th November 2006, exactly three years before Climategate broke. This means I share a birthday with both. But following the site for fifteen years goes beyond the call of duty, even for a lawyer.
The site is not readily accesible to people who want a quick and especially an easy intro into the sceptics case. Such an intro should have things that address the rubbish that most people parrot from the MSM, such as quickly exposing the “most scientists say…”, the sea is rising, the world is getting hotter, corals, etc, and then go on to give additional stuff such as the hot spot that isn’t, moisture levels declining, Antarctic ice, global ice, etc.
Each point would need to be brief with a link to further more detailed information on each subject. The whole thing should not be more than two screens.
If it isn’t short and brief and simple then most people will stop reading after just 10 seconds, just like CVs (resume ? in the US ?).
As others, if you can “number” each comment, I can pick up where I left off soooo much easier.
Otherwise, Thanks !
=====================================================================
Perhaps what you’re asking for is already here under “Reference Pages”?
Have a full RSS feed available. Or at least do something better than the first N words. I also usually use a tablet, and it is a pain to have to switch, especially when the intro is something like “I was reading this interesting article on another website and thought I would share it here. I personally know the author, and I think he does a fine job of demonstrating …”.
I asked earlier and was told that having things like greek letters or something else crashed other feed readers, so to insure the small number won’t crash only the first few sentences are included. And I assume whatever they are reading on might be fixed or there would be alternative feed readers (feedly and feedspot don’t seem to crash).
Although I use a tablet, I usually have it set to the desktop site, so I have to load all the links, ads, sidebars, comments, pictures, and that can be slow. Sometimes the article doesn’t prove to be as interesting, and I could have seen that from a little more context. I’m probably missing some good stuff that I just don’t want to wait for the extra page-load time to find out.
If it is a matter of price, maybe kickstarter or indegogo or something similar would show if people would contribute for improvements.
But please consider a full article RSS feed.
J Martin:
In the light of events earlier in this thread I am a bit fearful of trying to help in response to a request, but at June 15, 2014 at 12:59 pm you ask for
Although they do not exactly meet your specification, I commend you look at the ‘Skeptics Handbooks’ by Jo Nova. They can be downloaded from here.
I hope this helps.
Richard
Could you invite experts to provide explanatory articles as a separate section?
I am sure readers can think of many topics where authoritative explanations would help inform arguments but, as an example to start with, could someone provide a rigorous explanation of the effect of increased CO2 on temperatures of the troposphere and the surface of the earth. I have read the IPPC reports, I have read many climate physics text books, I have read various posts on WUWT, but still can’t say what is supposed to be happening. [I would prefer not to be fobbed off with MODTRAN, as I don’t know how this program works and handles energy transfer, relaxation, re-radiation, and effects of convection.] In particular how much of the effect of CO2 increase causes warming of the atmosphere (through relaxation of vibrational and rotational energy excitations to molecular kinetic energy) and how much warming of the surface (through re-radiation)? How much does convection contribute? The oft-quoted Kiehl and Trenberth paper (Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., 1997. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. , 78, 197-208) lacks any semblence of rigour and could be read as saying “we don’t understand the energy balance”, which is rather odd given how often it is quoted. Isn’t warming due to increase in CO2 the basis of the “anthropogenic global warming” proposition? If so, perhaps you could invite academics who believe this to give their explanations? Michael Mann, for example, as he seems to be a supporter of your site.
My academic background is post-graduate quantum physics so I am looking for a rigorous explanation, though I would welcome layman explanations (e.g. is the atmosphere akin to layers of half-silvered mirrors reflecting energy back to the surface or is it like a blanket that soaks up the infra-red emitted by the surface and warms the troposphere). One lay view, though, that could be readily disposed of is that the atmosphere with CO2 isn’t like a greenhouse.
First of all, my first thought was “don’t change a thing” but…
I note that a lot of the CAGW posters refer to SKS as a reference and a few of my friends with PhD’s in Physics, Computer Science, and Mathematics who I personally have a debate with, often quote or link to info on Skeptical Science.
Here’s what WUWT has to say about SKS:
…………………………………………………
“Unreliable*
• Skeptical Science – John Cook
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”
………………………………………………..
It might be useful to have a quick reference as to why the SKS articles are unreliable with some examples. I can never seem to find the right graph or article to counter an argument. Are there examples of #(1) and (2)?
It might be useful to link to a page that expands (Or explains from a skeptical view) these SKS “Most Used Climate Myths”:
Climate’s changed before
It’s the sun
It’s not bad
There is no consensus
It’s cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn’t warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments…
And some of the other unreliable claims
And of course the “escalator continued warming thing” explained or refuted in simple terms.
The only other thing I have a problem with (as a lay person) is the acronyms and abbreviations in many of the technical articles. A lot are not in the WUWT Glossary.
Possibly spelling out the acronyms at the end of each technical article would help, and it wouldn’t take up much space.
Other than that, I wouldn’t change a thing…
Pretty new to all of this, but I now track several different climate sites. To me, WUWT is clearly the best of them due to the sheer number of quality posts and comments, and ease of use. No need to change anything. As for the threaded, nested or numbered commenting feature, I am not in favor of that going more than one deep. It would appear in some instances those comments disintegrate into a school yard shouting contest over a misconstrued joke or nuance, or a miniscule technical point. After XX.1.3, I am usually not reading.
Lastly, a request for researchers, politicians, authors and commenters writing for WUWT. (Seth Borenstein probably won’t read this.) It is common for those on the CAGW side of the debate to use the term “carbon” (like in soot) as shorthand for “carbon dioxide” (plant food) and combine it with “pollution.” Voila, they have confused/conflated the language and throw in references to asthma just to be sure. It is my belief 95% of the U.S. population could not even correctly explain the term “carbon pollution” as meant by our current EPA chief. Soot, from Asian power plants, cooking fires or Siberian forest fires, is a serious concern in the NH. But, that is not what the EPA is talking about. If possible, please use the full name (carbon dioxide) in any writing or discussion of that subject. Thank you.
Richard Drake says:
June 15, 2014 at 12:39 pm
======
Latitude:
Richard, I don’t read comments on Judith’s blog….because of the nesting
===========
Because, presumably, you find the noise-to-signal ratio too high to make the effort worthwhile, a fact you put down to the nesting. (You’re not alone. I think S McIntyre feels similarly.)
=======
=========
Exactly, all it takes is one David Appell to post first to a thread….and for the next 30 minutes you’re scrolling down looking for something worthwhile
as far as the quality of info on site, I don’t think it can get any better.
its a good balance of science and plain talk.
(Sorry for the annoying CAPS – haven’t taken the time to see how wuwt does html/italics.)
Instead of CHANGING wuwt, how about giving us MORE OF IT?
I think it’s a wasted opportunity that wuwt does not make a concerted effort to offer one or more separate sections of the site dedicated to organizing and leveraging the vast collective knowledge of the wuwt community. There is SO MUCH MORE that the myriad of truly knowledgeable, and often ridiculuously intelligent (or even people like me!), members of the community could add to the climate science debate body of knowledge. Instead, they’re limited to making comments that inevitably disappear soon enough into the fog of history. That’s not an insult – the site is WONDERFUL as it is; so wonderful, in fact, that there simply should BE MORE OF IT. Let’s organize much more of the vast pools of knowledge coarsing through this site and produce with it useful works of science and commentary – organized papers for the wuwt community’s own personal use, in addition to the daily comment threads.
I’ll check back later and if anyone seems interested (Ha! – probably even if they don’t ;^> ), I’ll take the time to outline a little of what I have in mind (no doubt others will have their own thoughts – at least I hope so). For now, however, I’ll just restate my basic point, which is that the collective knowledge, energies and cognitive firepower of the wuwt community could very easily be allowed to cooperate and create in very positive and productive ways (on a completely different part of the site), especially in ways that allow them to ORGANIZE the most important pieces of information that work their way daily through the site and its comments, so as not to have to continually reinvent the wheel rehashing the same basic issues day after day. That they do not have this outlet for their talents and energy is an own-goal on the part of the wuwt mission (IMH-and respectful-O), one whose end result, while completely unintended, amounts essentially to a division and conquest of a really mind-boggling amount of collective potential.
So humbly opineth one among thousands… (And thanks, Anthony, for the opportunity to so opine.)
PS: Apologies if it turns out to be that everything I’ve just said has already been brought up and shot down some time before. It’s new to me, so I throw it out there…
Two suggestions: Better marketing of the site and a more structured approach to SEO (Search Engine Optimization for those who struggle with TLA’s )
I discovered years ago that this was going to be my primary source of climate information for all the reasons stated by previous commentators and by the quality of most of your posts. But my discovery of your site was more of an accident of search engine logic than by design. You posted an article regarding how far down in the list WUWT is on a Google search illustrated this fact some time ago. A coherent approach to SEO would go a long ways toward that improving your placement.
Related to that is your method of titling pages. Others have commented on this but I will have a go at it as well. You titles all seem to be written by technicians, for technicians. Wordy, rambling and descriptive all apply to most f them. Any newspaper editor can tell you that a good title will determine if your article is being read or used to wrap fish. I am assuming that you want to increase your numbers of new readers and I think you should consider the visual impact of the page titles more than you currently do.
I and I suspect most of the people who have commented on this post, will always read the articles, irregardless of the title as we are dedicated followers based on years of really good articles. It’s the new-to-your-site prospective readers who would be better served by the change.
Oh, and numbered, threaded comments would assist me. I sometimes wonder if I learn more from the post or the comments. But, there are some individuals (you know who you are) that spend more time dropping troll bait than adding to the discussion. Would be nice to be able to collapse and hide these self-absorbed little micro-dramas while I search for the pearls and nuggets of knowledge and good-hearted humor the comments so often contain.
Thanks for asking for the input and keep up the good work.
Brian
Saw this load from the American Lung association yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwDd9FVzQx8
I have multiple WordPress blogs and can’t comment here unless I sign out here, go to every blog and sign out there, then sign into my jorge blog. Then I come back here and refresh the screen before trying to comment. That USUALLY works, but not always.
Users should note that WordPress tracks your accounts by eddress, not by user name. I’ve learned the hard way that you should have a different eddress and user name for each WordPress blog you operate. Don’t stay signed in to a blog once you’re done.
And above all, No bebo y blog!
” coalsoffire says: June 15, 2014 at 8:33 am
Poking the hive gets the bees buzzing even if it does no real good.”
And wastes everybody’s time. I just ignore any post by Mosher now, have done for ages.
Crowd source “Education Files” that address the major points of CAGW debate and create a WUWT RePublic Library here for them.
The idea is to create an easily accessible resource pool of Power Point based presentation files for AGW education purposes.
1. These should be Power Point presentations from contributors here, that may provide high level overviews of the AGW topic and/or separate PP pitches on major points, details, and related topics.
2. They can be summaries of articles presented at WUWT, but condensed and formatted in Power Point for easy access and use by any WUWT participant for class room or civic organization education purposes.
3. They should be understandable by a high school senior level of comprehension, with references appended for related discussion articles here on WUWT and/or publish research papers.
4. Access inside the library would be ‘read/copy’, but not ‘write’. Files would be open for modifications when copied to personal computers.
5. If a common template and/or guidelines for the presentations is desirable, it should be available for download from the library.
I know there are quite a few readers/participants here that have their own ‘Education Files’ already!
If we can get them in a condensed version, common presentation format, organized, and located in a ‘WUWT RePublic Library’, it can be a very powerful resource for educating friends, family, and civic groups we all work with. The common resource files means we would all have access to good presentations that could be shared directly with a civic group or easily tailored to address a more narrow topic that is in vogue at any given time.
Thanks for ‘asking’…. and keep on doing what you do sooooo well, A!
Best regards,
Mac
One more thought:
Ask all contributors to spell out a phrase first, before using an acronym in a submitted article.
Ex: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
This will ease the ‘alphabet soup’ learning curve for new readers and old dogs alike.
Mac
I think it’s counterproductive to call someone an anonymous coward without requiring real names (not that you could even enforce it). If one person is an anonymous coward because they disagree with you and don’t use their real name, then everyone who doesn’t use their real name, agreeable or not, are also anonymous cowards.
As with the funding argument, either their statement has merit on its own, or it doesn’t. Whether or not they use their real name is irrelevant.
Please don’t allow comments to comments. I have often commented to comments and do so by copy and pasting – it doesn’t have to be under the comment itself. If comments are inside other comments, in order to see them, we’d all have to go over the entire thread again and again in painstaking detail. I’d have to do that a dozen times a day – and I won’t, which means I and many others would miss out on those comments completely along with all their follow-ups.
Also, please do not chop out the political stuff. Science is great, but for me, it’s vital to watch the collapse of the climate house of cards the world over. We’re NOT getting this info in the news. I want to watch every step of it happen – that’s why I’m glued to your pages every day. You are my major source of information.
I love how the site is. I can’t see how you can do any more or make it any better. It’s clear by your stats that you have a winning combination.
Thanks again for the great job that you are doing in the face of official ignorance and dishonesty. I think the important thing is to maintain a standard of polite debate and avoid Trash Talk and Name Calling. Even when faced with the inanities of a Steven Mosher, just keep on the even course. Leave that abusive stuff to the Inferior Sites.
A. I confess to being addicted to the site for a daily fix. Keep it up.
B. Per Warren Bonesteel, Elevate the posts wherever possible. Trash the ideas, assumptions and methodology; not the person.Celebrate the ideas, assumptions and methodology; not the person.
C. Per B, lose the phrasing ‘alarmist’, ‘warmist’. CAGW works for me. Need a more positive phrasing than ‘climate change skeptic’ and certainly than ‘climate change denier’. Climate ‘observer’?
D. Treasure replicability (if that is a word). This is still infant science. We need to build it brick by brick.
E. Summary of Key Climate Change Concepts or ‘Anthony’s Current Climate Observations’, updated annually, accessible to average reader of The Economist, as a ‘Top Post’ sticky. A dozen 8-second sound bites. E.g. In June 2014, there is more ice area at the two poles than there has been on average for the last 30 years.E.g. 2. No global warming on average for over 17 years, despite xx% increase in global CO2 levels. E.g. 3 Best estimate of sea level rise to 2100 is 0.xx m (with link to details).
Keep up the terrific service.
Jeff Alberts:
Your post at June 15, 2014 at 3:44 pm says
This is a statement of your opinion and it is as valid as all other opinions.
However, its merit depends on context. If an anonymous person makes a derogatory personal remark from behind the shield of anonymity then he/she/they/it is an anonymous coward unless they demonstrate their willingness to come out from behind the shield. Such personal remarks by such anonymous cowards are commonly made against Lord Monckton; e.g. untrue claims that he is not a real Lord. And the fact that the provider of the personal remark is an anonymous coward is pertinent to consideration of all comments by the coward.
Richard
I am SO thankful for WUWT Anthony. I can’t think of anything that you may change to make it better. The sheer volume of information I get from this site is worth several university degree’s. I like the humor, satire, vibrant discourse and science found here. Some threads made laugh till I had tears rolling. I have only scratched the surface of the information in this site. When I comment in other blogs or articles, when I reference WUWT or Climate Audit or any number of highly qualified presenters encounter here the hail of verbal lead directed at me is telling. It is telling me that WUWT has / is – dealt/ dealing very effective blows to the CAGW narrative. Having been scolded here myself from time to time by other commenters, I have learned from them. The very large international audience is proof positive that you have done right. The whole of humanity may in the future owe WUWT a debt of gratitude.
George E. Conant
Posts on WUWT are mostly excellent, not much change needed there. What is really really needed is a reference summary of climate science, its strengths, weaknesses, etc. Ditto for climate computer modelling. ie, the “Sceptic case”.
Essential to retain the even-handed approach, and to encourage commenters to avoid snark (quality is already way above most blogs, but better is still possible).
Invite prominent AGWers to post.
WUWT’s main problem IMHO is the high number of comments (the only? downside of its popularity). RACookPE1978 recommends comment numbering plus navigation facilities. Very good idea. I suggest also –
– Toggle option for comment compression (number, name, date-time, first line), so the comments can be scanned quickly for interesting ones. Toggle at single comment level and all comments level.
– More search options and ways of organising one’s reading of comments (comments by same commenter on this/other posts; comments referencing this comment [can be done with comment numbering]; latest first; etc).
One technicality : I am pretty sure that some guest posts are missed out of the archives.
—
Mark Stoval re 1) Don’t know if this is your problem, but: WordPress account doesn’t work first time on my iPad, though it used to. Now I save my comment, sign on, refresh, find thread place again, post comment. A pain, but it works. Anything rather than use Twitter!