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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Perhaps an audit of the Blog roll once or twice a year? Some of the Skeptical Views blogs are dormant, some appear to be abandoned.
Ken
Ditto
Then perhaps that comment shouldn’t be allowed, since it would be off topic (unless the topic is about the derogatory remark).
But, plenty of people in here in support of WUWT often call others names or make derogatory remarks, under the cowl of anonymity. If it doesn’t go both ways then it’s just a stick to beat those with whom you do not agree.
You have a very successful website. I say keep doing what you are doing. The more taunts you get the better, because that indicates you are effective and making a difference. This is a very serious battle, don’t give up.
Revive the critical rationalist philosophy of Karl Popper which has been expelled from the mainstream of academic philosophy due to serial misreading. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=rafe+champion
I’m in favor of a membership based skeptical organization arising from the wuwt community and others of like mindedness and led by expert climate skeptics. It would be wonderful to have a goto expert skeptical organization for professional PR and refutation of the constant stream of alarmist propaganda masquerading as science.
Hi Anthony,
Most of the minor points that I might have suggested are covered better above. Not feeding the trolls or hopelessly confused is a good idea as is maintaining a degree of professionalism in spite of provocation.
I do find comments often difficult to follow both here and at Climate Etc. for reasons that have been discussed above. Is it possible to have the best of both worlds, i.e. nested replies to comments that remain collapsed threads unless opened by a reader (e.g. See Replies button)? This would allow people to carry-on a derivative conversation (or flame war) without interrupting the general flow of comments, but allow the option of closely associating replies with comments.
In general, errors or confusions in postings seem to be quickly pounced on by knowledgeable commentators, but I don’t think this is true of much of the ecological/biological silliness that you bring to our attention. Often these postings get some essential aspect wrong and the comments tend towards ridicule as opposed to addressing the scientific flaws. It is true that many of these are so bad that they deserve the ridicule; but still, it would be better if they were presented with the scientific flaws exposed to comment, not the superficial aspects. I think you could use the help of a biological reviewer to run these by first – Jim Steele seems excellent.
PS. Don’t nest comments, it encourages bickering.
Navigating and Browser shortcuts for Firefox, Mac and Windows:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/keyboard-shortcuts-perform-firefox-tasks-quickly
I have a suggestion for those bothered by ads (or even by the site loading too slowly). Install Mozilla Firefox and its add-ons “NoScript” and “RequestPolicy”. These let you selectively filter out each of the “junk” links which WP and many similar blog-engines insert into posts, so you control what you see on any web page. This is how the web should be used.
My first suggestion is to create a page called “THE BASICS” as a drop-down menu. Under this would be:
• WHAT WE KNOW
This page states the basics about the climate that sceptics and warmists agree on (no dragon slayers – they are like walking through honey).
• WHAT WAS PROJECTED / WHAT IS OBSERVED?
Give the IPCC temperature projections at each report and compare to observations. Also sea level rise, Antarctica sea ice extent, thermal expansion, water vapour etc. Followed by a short explanation of the scientific method for the layman.
This should turn any rational Warmist who does not have a hidden agenda.
bruce says:
June 15, 2014 at 12:36 pm (re Precautionary Principle -PP)
Enjoyed your post.
When this has come up either in conversation or court matters I always argue that PP is based on possibility rather than probability and therefore is not a scientific principle.
“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.” A. Watts
Is this the same; “anybody that does not believe in the “greenhouse effect” is the “real denier”” Anthony Watts ?
I’ve been called a denier (by the host), a lunatic, and caricatured with long pointy teeth and knobs on my head at this blog (nice artwork Josh, but you captured my “bad” side). All for just presenting an alternative hypothesis about the “GHE”. Said “GHE” is STILL just a hypothesis, nothing more. A computer model that mimics a hypothesized effect IS NOT PROOF. And my “understanding” of radiative physics has been dismissed by the host; “they don’t understand radiative physics”, yet my customers pay “big bucks” for my understanding of radiative physics.
Anthony has a fine blog, but it might just be enhanced even further if it allowed for the possibility that the “experts” and the “textbooks” might just be wrong WRT the “GHE”. It has happened before, i.e. ulcers, lobotomies, plate tectonics, etc. etc.
If folks want to believe that a MINUSCULE amount of gases in the atmosphere are driving/controlling/forcing the temperature of the MASSIVE oceans into compliance, so be it. But the results are in, almost two decades with no warming while “GHG’s” are steadily increasing. What’s that I smell, seems like coffee……
Cheers, Kevin
What Mosher should realise is this: what if we ALL made cryptic comments? What if every single comment was cryptic? WUWT would have disappeared before it reached its first 100 visitors.
I’ve been most impressed by the timeliness and comprehensiveness of the blog’s news items.
Often I’ll get an email directing me to a media article about global warming and will already be
aware of same via WUWT, which allows me (usually) to refute the nonsense at once.
u could avoid failed gambles on the rigged international currency markets!
16 June: Yahoo: AFP: Greenpeace worker loses 3.8 mn euros in bad currency bet
A Greenpeace employee has been fired after losing the environmental charity 3.8 million euros ($5.15 million) in a failed gamble on international currency markets, the group said on Sunday.
“Nothing suggests at this point that he acted for personal gain, it seems to be a terrible miscalculation,” Greenpeace communications director Mike Townsley told AFP…
Netherlands-based Greenpeace, like many big charities, agrees fixed-rate foreign exchange deals with third-party brokers to try to protect themselves from world currency fluctuations.
“It is common practice for organisations like ours, with a worldwide presence,” Townsley said.
“We would be too exposed to currency fluctuations and risk to lose a lot of money.”
Greenpeace, known for its militant anti-drilling campaigns at oil rigs in the Arctic, has a total annual budget of around 300 million euros.
No Greenpeace campaign will suffer as a result of the loss, which will be absorbed by reducing expenses such as infrastructure over the next two to three years…
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/greenpeace-worker-loses-3-8-184808946.html
I don’t understand advertisers. Just how many times are you going to buy the same kettle in one year? They seem to be obsessed with adverts based on past behaviour. Think about this for one second. You browse the web and see a nice smartphone. You buy the phone. You then look for chicken seasoning, and you keep getting ads for smartphones. Ads for chicken seasoning would perhaps do better. Yet this is what the Google guys are pushing.
Even I agree with that. Er… what’s that again? For my own part, sorry… been experiencing an odd sort of dissociative malaise the last six years.
Greenpeace employee gambles in forex markets, loses €3.8 million in donations
Read more at http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/06/greenpeace-employee-gambles-in-forex-markets-loses-e3-8-million-in-donations/#w8fC7qUOEI3wQFpq.99
Thanks so much to everyone here who make this, by far, the most informative site on what’s going on in the crazy world of Climate Science.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Eamon.
15 June: Bhaskar India: Ashish Pandey: Centre serves notice to Greenpeace; NGO responds to ‘leaked’ IB report
Greenpeace responds to various accusations and the ‘leaked’ IB Report that alleges it and other NGOs in the country for receiving foreign donations to hamper India’s economic growth…
http://daily.bhaskar.com/article-ht/NAT-TOP-ngos-come-under-scanner-centre-serves-notice-greenpeace-responds-to-leaked-ib-re-4647901-PHO.html
4 pages: .pdf: Greeenpeace: Response to leaked IB Report
6.Why is Greenpeace anti–‐coal when India has no choice but to burn coal for electricity, power shortages,
RE (renewables) is too expensive etc.
GREENPEACE: Climate change is the biggest threat mankind has ever faced, and the science of climate change is clear…
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/Global/india/greenpeace_response_to_leaked_ib_report.pdf
Dozens of really excellent comments here. For the record, I do not like nested comments. But numbered comments would be fine.
Scott Basinger says:
3. Avoid voice-of-Gavin style inline comments. It’s very off-putting and the reason I completely avoid RealClimate these days.
Agree. Inline comments by moderators other than Anthony are inappropriate. There is a different dynamic in play when a mod makes a comment, and it is often unpleasant for the person being replied to within their own comment. They take it as a reprimand. Moderators should make comments using their regular screen names, not inline comments as a moderator. Other than Anthony, there is no need for mods to do more than keep the site running properly. For the most part, they do a very good job.
This was a very genuine post of the sort that warmunists would never do. Valuable in and of itself. As you pointed out, flak on target means bombing raids are hurting.
I decided to wait a day to see what others would say, since their opinions count. Judith Curry recently asked the same thing for CE. Boy, complex to answer. But, Same answer. You address slightly different audiences, obviously successfully. So, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Now, as Microsoft is learning to its great regret, that leads to the frog in a pot problem.
So, rather than provide answers, let me provide questions. Is this blog a frog in the climate pot? What is changing that you are ignoring? IMO, maybe the fact that the climate meme has become almost totally political. Science has gotten left in the dust, along with the station siting project and any other objective inputs. But do you want to go that political, or just feed blogs (Steyn, Dellingpole, …) that already are. The choices are yours. But Thanks for asking.
If climate science is going to leave out this stuff then what’s their real agenda. Is this creating atmospheric hot spots or are my eyes deceiving me? http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/5/2/3
NAME-CALLING is essential to the discussion. It triggers their mistakes (Peter Glieck). This is a WAR and not friendly chatter. If you don’t understand this then we have lost already.
It is NOT only about the science. It NEVER has been only about the science. See Warmists’ agendas on your energy bills and infrastructure.
What it’s about is Warmists setting up co2 regulations, markets, making money, getting awards as quickly as possible before it turns cold. That’s it.
Get rid of that annoying “Enter your comment here” message that appears on top of my writing and covers it up so I can’t see what I am doing.