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.
Late to this party, but I have a suggestion that might interest a lot of readers:
How about a periodic, say weekly, debate, on important climatology controversies, or any other interesting science question?
You would pick a topic (say, “Is there any actual empirical evidence for anthropogenic global warming?” or [thinking of an article in the Atlantic that I posted in Tips & Notes] “Is the Himalayan region really suffering from ‘global warming’, leading to glacier melt and instability?”), then invite an expert from each side to present his case (with links and references), followed up by two or three rebuttals each; then open the thread up to reader comments.
It is often said here that CAGW proponents “Will not debate.” Well, let’s give them the opportunity!
Obviously it take more work, which is the last thing you need, but perhaps it could be delegated.
Oh, and I’d like to see more posts on other science topics, besides climatology.
Otherwise, WUWT is my favorite blog; my only problem is finding the time to keep up with the flow of new posts (threatening to become a torrent!) and the often fascinating Comment threads. I think numbering the comments would help finding one’s place when returning, and I would love to see a Format box for Comments, but I understand the free WordPress doesn’t offer the latter—and the former, too?
/Mr Lynn
Sticks and stones may [break] my bones but names will never hurt me. Don’t ever let people take emotional control over you by name calling. Remember life is like a mirror, you’ll always get back what you put out. You don’t show respect then don’t ever expect to be respected.
As soon as I type one letter, the message disappears. I’m using Safari; maybe it’s different with other browsers.
/Mr Lynn
“coalsoffire says:
June 15, 2014 at 8:33 am
I’d like to say a word in praise of Mosher’s cryptic, drive-by, snarky, annoying comments. They do generate a lot of blog comments. Poking the hive gets the bees buzzing even if it does no real good”
###################
another person who gets it.
frankly I dont see how willis or Leif put up with the comments they get. generally speaking if one wants to have an in depth science discussion there are only two places that dont tolerate crap from commenters and stay on point:
lucia and CA. every other place is not conducive to discussion. Look at the lengths willis has to go to to keep people on topic. Look at the way one of the worlds top solar scientists is treated here.
Perhaps one thing to do is to read the typical post and then predict what you will see in the commments.
9 times out of 10 the comments fall into the same canned responses. Nobody is thinking they are just reacting.
one way to get people thinking again is to present them with a mystery. Curious folks will try to figure it out
lazy folks want it all laid out so they can make their canned response.
I will add this. I did nit expect the comment i commented on.
now for a cryptic comment. shannon entropy.
“Mainly, I think the site needs no real change. Hell, look at how popular it is now. Look at the Bloggies it has won.”
every year we used to meet and anthony would ask us what he could do to improve the blog
every year there were two groups.
1. Make these changes 1-100
2. Change nothing
Anthony thankfully has never listened to group 2, and has always picked the best suggestions from the long lists of things, so I’d say make your suggestions. His judgement on how to improve things has been pretty damn good. So speak up.
Just sayin.
Jimbo says:
June 15, 2014 at 6:13 pm
“NAME-CALLING is essential to the discussion. It triggers their mistakes (Peter Glieck).”
===========
Not in a well trained force, it don’t.
It just turns off the fence-sitters, imho.
“What Mosher should realise is this: what if we ALL made cryptic comments? ”
1. most of you can’t
2. Kant was wrong.
WUWT continues to be very good.
I would be very pleased to see more attention paid to the methods and instruments of mensuration; from pH meters to microwave sensors and how inferences are drawn from those measurements. There’s a lot of wrangling over statistical manipulation but less about the credibility of some dude called Jason, who can split an arrow at a million and a half paces.
In the ‘Leave a Reply’ section, add a mechanism to select formatting options such as
, , etc.
It’s a pain to offer a quote in a reply only to find one has mis-typed a \ for a / or other minor error which destroys the formatting.
IIRC, this was available once for a short time but was then removed.
Otherwise, great site and my first read of the day for rebuttals to pro-AGW mania.
It is the gift of the talented and genius to always desire improvements to the things they build.
Yes, fame can be fleeting; so improvements can often delay the inevitable. Better that fame fleets by than advancing calcification causes distance or condescension.
As blogs, WUWT Climate Audit and Bishop Hill follow very similar paths.
These blogs demand and enforce respect first and always.
Respect encompasses many aspects especially where civil discourse and science is discussed. This respect is what makes WUWT such a success and continues to make it a success.
When the common ground so many of us seek finally recovers proper science treatment, that is the time to worry about losing us as visitors.
Frankly, I’d much rather chase knowledge and discussion about orchards, mineralogy, orchids, fishing, hunting, shooting, optics, astronomy and many more areas of my personal interest.
The trouble is almost every site that I know of relating to those areas has one or more of several issues.
A lack thereof:
a) frequent knowledgeable visits and comments.
b) solid adherence to science. Few things are more irritating to have a flock of dimwits drop in chattering about their covens, healings, magic, alignments and whatnot.
c) civil discourse delivered with respect and often admiration. Flame wars, insults, belittling, condescension and similar lack of good manners is indicative of, well, catastrophist climate types; and we’ve witnessed plenty of evidence regarding their ideas for science discussion and derision.
Far too much:
a) pontificating
b) self opinion and opinion of self
c) obtuse, neutron star brain density or similar affliction
d) old guard members taunting, dismissing or belittling newer folks
e) belief without rationale, acceptance without critical review
Not that my opinion matters in these things, but I greatly appreciate the skill and devotion you administer to this site Anthony. That is why I spend more time here at your site than all of the other sites I visit, combined.
Your science level is high. Your sense of proportion is excellent. Your view of justice matches mine and our views.
Make changes as you see the need. You do have our trust.
for anything related to the most ambitious fraud every perpetrated on humanity in history, evar- this is the place for early warning notice of troop movements.
i’m ready to credit mr watts and wuwt with being the single biggest reason we aren’t yet being taxed for breathing.
what else i like?
i’ll read anything written by messrs steele, ball, brown, willis, moncton – they are also attractions.
i very much respect and appreciate the tone of the place- and thanks to the moderators who keep things going smoothly with clarity of purpose.
so i have no changes to suggest, but please, sir- can i have some more?
Nesting – for the love of g_d, NO!
Blog Spawn – I didn’t realize how much of this was going on until I inadvertently googled my own name and found a rebuttal to an article I’d published on WUWT. It was months later, so replying at that point was pointless. Had I known at the time though, I would have absolutely engaged. But I would have done so by shredding their claims in another article on WUWT. I don’t know which ones are the top ones, but if I did, I’d certainly monitor them when I write an article and then hit them back hard, not on their forum, but on this one.
People asking for help – perhaps a special thread for that just like tips and notes. Those interested could monitor it and jump in if they think they can help on other forums. I don’t see it getting much traction as there are few forums where help is required that allow informed debate, but it might get traction here or there where it does some good, particularly if it is just someone asking a question that is easily answered but no appropriate for any of the current threads. If nothing else it may expose discussions going on elsewhere that become fodder for a thread on WUWT.
I appreciate the positive tone of the blog entries and the blog comments. There are few hard edge comments. I think that is due in a large part to the example set by Anthony Watts and the Blog commentaries to always attempt to be gentlemanly in the old use of the word which must be difficult at times.
I find there is a good effort to balance political related issues, scientific, and the occasional insert of humor to make points and stimulate discussion (Monckton of Brenchley blog’s entries are a good example where points are made mixing wit and science.)
I appreciate the moderators’ efforts to keep the conversions civil.
I do not find the occasional off topic comment to be a distraction, if the comment in question is interesting and has a link to material for support as opposed to a rant or a deliberate attempt to disrupt the discussions.
I appreciate comments that include links to science papers or if appropriate to links to other technical discussions of the same or related subjects.
Steven Mosher says (June 15, 2014 at 6:48 pm)
““[..] it does no real good”
###################
another person who gets it.“.
Got it.
========================================================
Check out http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html on the sidebar.
It’s also a good way see if additional comments have been made to an older post you are interested in.
(PS A big “Thank you” to Ric Werme.)
As someone who (in their daily business) tries to measure temperatures, humidity, pressures etc using calibrated professional instruments, I am often amazed, amused and even delighted by the nature of some of the ‘scientific’ discussions that take place here.
It’s not uncommon to find fifty people arguing about a graph which purports to show that the “north Atlantic”!!!! has warmed or cooled by….oh let’s say 0.3C over….15 years.
Or that the Global temperature in 1870 was – 0.2 cooler than in 1890.
Where do they get these figures from…? Why, tree rings, isotopes or micro fossils or whatever
Well as they say…pull the other one!
Thankfully we now have satellite data from multiple and reputable sources, and we skeptics are watching the expansion of data collection on sea-level, sea ice, land ice, infra-red etc etc.
As time progresses there will be less and less opportunity for Warmists to create their ‘hockey sticks’…but in the meantime, how about a comprehensive account of what’s being measured by who, and to what degree of accuracy?
Richard Drake,
You are correct, and I knew just after I hit the post button that I had erred in combining this with a previous site. I followed this subject closely for fifteen years…. but the first few were clearly with another site similar to this, and this one has had my attention so long I did do a little time traveling. Thanks.
Bruce
Lordy! With all these people sayin the international community is reading this blog I better come across in my comments a bit more lady like!
1. Numbered comments would be helpful.
2. The climate blogosphere is chaotic, a virtual Wild West frontier territory. Watts Up With That (WUWT), along with Climate Audit (CA), do the best job possible of managing to stay sane, reasonable and friendly in such stormy circumstances. Steady as she goes.
I don’t know about that Pamela; you sound Lady like to me. Then again, maybe that just represents the Ladies I get to hear.
Keep talking any way you like.
Change little, the essence of this site is the ethics and personal decency that Anthony Watts and the moderators live by.
Numbered comments might help follow some cross commenting on high traffic comments.
But the way you conduct yourselves here, has earned my repeat and seems to resonate with most visitors.
As noted above, we could do our bit, by donating a little more frequently.
Which I will sign off to do.
Steven Mosher says:
June 15, 2014 at 6:54 pm
“What Mosher should realise is this: what if we ALL made cryptic comments? ”
1. most of you can’t
2. Kant was wrong.
=========================================================
Does that mean I Kant?
That sounds good in theory, but I’d miss Pat’s daily OT posts–and so would most WUWTers, I suspect.
Ant#ony,
Love the site.
Harry Passfield,
Don’t be a jerk. you can use Richards idea by using the hard menu button and selecting the menu item “find on page”. that is what I do on tablets and phones. If you can’t find the menu button its usually bottom left on all android devices. If you don’t have the menu item “find on page” then get a better browser like internet explorer. Just tryin to be helpful.
v/r,
David Riser
Steven Mosher says;
Perhaps one thing to do is to read the typical post and then predict what you will see in the commments.
9 times out of 10 the comments fall into the same canned responses. Nobody is thinking they are just reacting.
one way to get people thinking again is to present them with a mystery. Curious folks will try to figure it out
lazy folks want it all laid out so they can make their canned response.
————————————————————————————–
So, in 90% of threads, 100% of responses are canned and devoid of thought?
It’s not clear what happens in the other 10%, but research suggests that the curious folks only comment in these threads.
Cryptic comments that create mystery will stimulate the curious (who were not afflicted with thoughtlessness) but will not affect the lazy folks. Thus, this would only be effective in the 10% of threads that are commented on by curious folks.
The aim of getting people thinking again is not achieved.