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
Mosh (note use of cryptic form):
‘greed. If the universe of climate blogs didn’t include CA and Lucia’s it would be a much poorer place. But WUWT provides something different, such as comprehensive, timely coverage of many different aspects of the climate debate and the great thoughts of RG Brown. Can’t find a cryptic way to summarise all that – it just does a different job, despite considerable imperfections in the comments.
Love the history. But the main change I think needs to be made is to correct this:
I don’t think WUWT should attempt to be like those two but less toleration of crap and staying on point more would be good. That of course means more moderation. As I implied earlier I’d vote for that but nobody should underestimate how much work is involved.
Help. My comments about moderation are awaiting moderation!
Gunga Din says:
June 15, 2014 at 7:51 pm
Thanks. I haven’t done a very good job of late keeping up with things like my list of key posts. Some ill-considered wind projects have taken up a lot of time so far this year. OTOH, I’m fond of my Guide to WUWT, I use it myself!
On WUWT – One thing I encourage people to do is once or twice a poke around a page – look at the top nav bar, check the references on the right nav bar. Whenever I do I always find something that deserves more attention.
A few commenters have asked for things that are already on the nav bars!
You are doing a good job, Anthony. Having built several self-hosted and WP.com web sites, I understand what you are talking about. I, too, have complained to WordPress.com staff about the lack of editing features for those that comment on an article. But, you know that story
I would like for you to consider changing themes to a news-like theme. One reader calls it a magazine theme. It would make reading the blog a lot easier. Right now, you have that block at the top of the string of articles showing several titles, but a News theme could eliminate the need for that.
Thanks for running a great blog. I always make WUWT the first and last blog to read every day, You just can’t tell when a really good article will be published.
1. As I’ve mentioned earlier this year, I would love “recent comments” to be up higher.
2. Numbered comments would be nice.
3. For those suggesting a magazine theme, two or three examples would be nice.
Although I found this – http://www.designrazzi.net/2014/wordpress-magazine-news-themes/
Some interesting choices.
4. I actually can’t stand Pat’s Off topic posts. Surprised he hasn’t been told to use Tips and Notes instead.
5. As for Climate Etc. I tend to stay away because she’s so lenient. Most threads get ruined by alarmist spam.
@richardscourtney, re Lord Monckton (again): you are conflating two different concepts here, namely (a) that of being a hereditary peer of the UK (by virtue of one or one’s ancestor holding Letters Patent from the Crown, often as from many centuries ago) and (b) that of being entitled to sit in the upper legislative chamber of the UK Parliament. They were once the same, but under the House of Lords Act 1999 are now different: Lord Monckton is of course a hereditary peer but is not today a member of the House of Lords. (Compare this, for example with the case of Matt Ridley who actually is a member of the House of Lords, but chooses not to keep on referring to himself as Viscount Ridley).
I suggest the UK population must be entitled to know with certainty who is, and who is not, entitled to partake in any capacity in any legislation binding within the UK. Lord Monckton is not so entitled – though I have never myself seen his peerage doubted in these pages.
And (although Anthony has my full name, as from my email address) I choose to abbreviate my full name here because, although my statements above are both legally and factually correct, they appear not to be relished in some quarters. Anthony is of course the host of this excellent, multiple award-winning blog/journal, and I am quite content to leave to his discretion whether he chooses to publish this (or any other) comment of mine. I would just add that requiring full names to be published inevitably carries a “argument from authority” risk – part of the joy of this blog/journal is that one’s arguments are considered on their own merits, whatever they might be – and if unmeritorious are often raucously dismissed!
And as this is technically a “what could we do better at WUWT” open thread, may I respectfully just ask one thing – if anything were to happen to you, Anthony, would this blog just go off air, or is there an established succession? We would miss you terribly …
“I don’t think WUWT should attempt to be like those two but less toleration of crap and staying on point more would be good. That of course means more moderation. As I implied earlier I’d vote for that but nobody should underestimate how much work is involved.”
Huh. my flat mate is charles the moderator. I’m well aware of how much work it takes. Huge amounts.
“So, in 90% of threads, 100% of responses are canned and devoid of thought?”
err no. go back to square one.
“Cryptic comments that create mystery will stimulate the curious (who were not afflicted with thoughtlessness) ”
You will find that even curious people can be dragged into making thoughtless comments.
Just read a thread and watch people who are otherwise thoughtful get caught up in
what steve mcintyre calls “piling on”
For grins do a test.
Take a Tim Ball post
read every comment. Categorize the comment. see what you come up with.
Don’t go changin’
I am very well convinced by history – by their own writings – that neo-Marxist thought is behind a lot of the rent-seeking we see nowadays. For me, I pay attention to the public-policy issues of blind devotion to unfettered, gov’t-funded abortion and top-down population control as leading strategies of these reds, right along with total management (control) of the energy expenditure of every nation and every person.
I am sure most readers disagree with me on this, since most of us WUWT science-oriented readers are “secular-humanist,” where we are ostracized if you accept the scientific view that life begins at birth, and or believe that countries and peoples should generally be allowed to live however they want; we cannot help but meddle, assuming our superior intellect and morality.
I try to not suffocate this good thing with my views – we are pretty well able to suffocate Fox News, so that is satisfaction enough.
Will people listen to me or not? Well, I do not own the soapbox so I need to go by the owner’s rules, and not cross the line of hospitability. Eventually, I believe, the world view behind CAGW and “populaton control” a la Ehrlich will be very obvious, but for now, I strive to not take all posts off-track.
Please continue to tolerate me.
Don’t go changin’
I still Like Likes.
It’s real nice to get a bunch Likes for your comment, and it provides feedback, and may give you a better sense of what could be effective as far as arguments and so forth.
Why not try it but just eliminate Dislikes? I think that was the main objection before, that people disliked getting Dislikes. But everybody likes getting Likes.
It’s great as it is. Both Willis and cryptic Mosh are big attractions. While I’m here, is there a reason why I can’t find Paul Homewood – http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/ – on your blogroll?
The best thing about this site are 1) it distills the AGW scientific debate into terms any layman can follow and understand and 2) it notes examples of acedemic/scientific fraud by climatologists and universities. Keep doing that and I don’t care about the rest.
TimC:
In my post at June 15, 2014 at 3:57 pm which is here I wrote
You have responded with your post at June 15, 2014 at 10:41 pm which is here and attempts to start a flame war about whether the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is or is not what you consider to be a ‘real Lord’. Importantly, your response includes this
Thankyou for so clearly demonstrating that both my point and my illustration of my point are true.
Richard
Mosh: Sure, CtM is a hero, as are all of his ilk.
Very many people-including myself-write articles here. Some are of the moment and are quickly forgotten. Others may have a more lasting importance.
It would be useful if a small group of experts could review articles a month after they have finished in order to see if they are of greater importance than merely being of passing interest.
I suspect some worthwhile avenues are being explored on occasion here, but they rarely seem to have any lasting impact or reach a wider audience.
A collection of peer reviewed articles under the title ‘the best of…’ might be a natural extension of the WUWT ‘brand’
tonyb
I haven’t read the comments above so my apology if this idea has already been mentioned. WUWT often posts controversial articles, essays and research papers authored by climate scientists who fervently believe in AGW or human caused climate change. The many skeptic readers of WUWT waste no time criticising “shredding” the content. I would like see the author(s) formally invited to join the debate/discussion and given an opportunity to offer their rebuttal. I raised this idea many years ago however at that time Anthony or maybe a Mod suggested there was too much extra work involved. I understand this however I also believe that direct contribution from the Authors to the debate would add a nice roundness or balance to the discussion taking place. This balance is also sadly lacking at warmest blogs and so would add another point of difference for readers of WUWT. No?
The only way to judge whether something is an improvement is to know what the goals are.
The mission statement at the top of the page has led to success and a high readership. It says, “Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent events by AW.” Making improvements can only mean that the blog remains a commentary by AW, doesn’t it?
That commentary has included the paper on the adjustments to the NOAA data, and the surface stations audit. Surface stations sitting next to air conditioners and parking lots is not a good thing, and adjusting data to match the worst sites is not a good thing either. Improvements might include continued attention to those surface stations. Improvements or any changes to the goals should mean that while professionals and experts duel it out here, those of us who have an authentic interest in the outcomes, including devastating losses of purchasing power and freedom, also contribute meaningfully in reviewing the science and the policies.
If possible, more companies should hear from people who know it is counter productive and unnecessary to adopt expensive green programs, methods, and disruptions. Petitions or letters to oppose other petitions (esp. on change dot org) directed at companies might be a way WUWT can direct its energies to practical solutions. Some of the worst EPA policies are still only “voluntary.”
How about a sophisticated companion app that runs natively on your computer, i.e. uses the full feature set of your computer hardware instead of sitting inside of your internet browser. A WUWT branded app with two versions, a free one and a paid one, both identical but the paid one offers an optional way to fund skeptics.
The app could additionally work in such a way as to allow certain articles as appropriate to integrate with the app. For example locations on earth, Expansion of cryptic acronyms, databases of various climate science related entities.
I have been thinking about this for a few years now, and some work has begun in coding (software development). A large amount of work has been done on what to develop, in coming up with ideas to include in the app.
I would like to know what others think. If there is some enthusiasm for such an app, I could be encouraged to write a somewhat detailed blog post on a small subset of what I have in mind (don’t want to give away too much right now). Note : I will not accept any money for any work I do related to climate science, such as for the software I develop.
2nd Note: New generation chips from Intel comes out for the late Fall / early Winter holiday season using new 14nm tech, a shrink from the current 21nm, that promises less power usage, better performance. What I’m getting at is, Moore’s law still continues, lets use the power of these new – and even more powerful near future – computers in consumer hands to help disseminate facts about the earth and its climate, in visually compelling and sophisticated ways.
Mr. Mosher’s ego is very soon going to be equalized and this is not going to be pretty.
Poptech,
Why don’t you stick with what you’re really good at, and leave the threats out of it? Everyone has an ego. Including you.
As far as the clickable links not being clicked enough. I often click on them but the references are often above my scientific knowledge. Perhaps other people feel the same way and and just don’t click.
Thank you and keep up the hard work that keeps this website opersating. Your efforts certainly help me understand science.
One thing that ought to be done–perhaps by crowdsourcing–is to assign Category tags to the first 1000 or so uncategorized WUWT threads. Those have become “dark matter” to any visiting journalist or researcher.
Robert in Calgary says:
June 15, 2014 at 10:35 pm
Several people have mentioned this. Comment numbers may actually be buried in the web page HTML, but there’s no good way to use them.
I find the date stamp adequate in most ways and better in several.
If you catch up with the “current” state of WUWT, you could make a mental note of the most recent date stamp in an active post (or the current time converted to Pacific time). The next time in, that will be your resumption point for all posts.
What I do, this only works well on a “full computer” that’s on all the time, is to keep a browser tab open on each current post. To see new comments, I just refresh the page (function key F5 on Firefox) and keep reading. This has a drawback that I’ll miss some of the comments stuck in moderation, but compared to the mess threaded comments would be, it’s good enough.
dbstealey says:
June 16, 2014 at 3:36 am
> Poptech,
I dislike “me too posts.” I wonder if there would be fewer of them if there was a like button.
People mention that was tried but proved to be too much of a distraction or people tried to game the system. I think missed that experiment.
Where was I? Oh yeah, “Me, too.”
I like the format as is. I’m not crazy about the new Top Stories repeating article. You already have it as a sidebar list, so no need to have it in the article stream, in my opinion.