A MUST READ – WUWT Housekeeping: ongoing issues, updates, fixes, and polls

NOTE: This will be a top post until Monday, new stories follow below. A couple of Saturdays ago, I posted an “Open Thread” with a question about “What could we do better”? You responded, and I’ve listened. In the meantime, WordPress.com has thrown us all a curve-ball with a new software update that I really don’t like because it has now made running WUWT harder.  So, I have a few caveats that I need you to be aware of, and I want to ask a question of my readers that will help me determine the future of this blog.

1. Personal:

I have some personal issues (including my hearing and health) going on in my life during the past year that have prevented me from spending as much time researching, writing posts, and keeping up with comments on WUWT as I used to. Regulars may have noticed this. This is all slowly getting resolved, but it takes time. For those that read about my new hearing aids and the great boost they gave me over a year ago, that benefit has faded, and I’m fighting a pattern recognition problem that I didn’t have as badly before. I’ll expound on the whys of this in a future post.

2. Image fetching for reference pages got broken by an update I had no control over:

Some readers may or may not know that I am hosted at wordpress.com using their highly resilient and automatically backed up cloud based infrastructure. Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit and Judith Curry’s website also take advantage of this platform and it has worked very well. WUWT has been on it since October of 2007. During this time there have been dozens of updates to the software automatically deployed by WordPress that have been mostly positive, until now.  A few weeks ago, they deployed a new update that forced https: on all sites hosted at wordpress.com . In theory, this is a good thing, in practice, it broke just about every reference page (especially the sea ice page) at WUWT because the update causes all images fetched with http rather than https protocol to become cached. This made the images in the reference appear as if they didn’t update. The only solution is to click directly on them. Some might ask, why don’t I simply change all the http image fetch requests to https? That seems like an easy and obvious fix, except when you discover that a number of the government websites used in our reference pages don’t support https, and the images won’t display when called by that fetching protocol. Here is an example: https://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/global.gif

I placed a trouble ticket into wordpress.com support for this issue and here is what they say:

Hi Anthony,

I’ve received a reply from our software department and here’s the conclusion:

We won’t disable the https on your site because it’s a bad practice and may introduce security holes. However, we can stop caching the images on your site, but then your visitors will get the warning about mixed content because as I explained earlier, some of your images are from http (unsecured) sites and your site is https (secured). Let me know if you are okay with this.

Cheers,

Rasto L. – Happiness Engineer

WordPress.com | http://support.wordpress.com

I have told them to turn off caching images, and that I’d fix the pages that had mixed http/https and I’m waiting for confirmation. It’s been three days, and I’ve received no notice, but they may have made the switch already. I’d greatly appreciate it if readers would check out our multitude of reference pages shown below and report back in comments.

3. Sea ice images got broken by a satellite failure:

At about the same time wordpress initiated their https switchover that caused our images in reference pages to stop updating in your browser, the DMSP F17 satellite had a sensor failure that caused the loss of sea-ice data for several organizations, including NSIDC, Cryosphere Today, and others. WUWT has had several posts on the issue, yet some people still write to me wondering why images aren’t correct. The most comical aberration presented by this satellite instrument failure comes from Cryosphere Today:

cryospehere-today-seaice.anomaly.arctic

A more perfect example of a climate “hockey stick” could not possibly be generated, and it is just as bogus a presentation as the original:

Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large[1]

NSIDC reports that they are updating their images based on DMSP F18 data, and that it is provisional pending calibration. Other sea-ice agencies have not been so quick to respond.

Patience while the problem gets resolved will be appreciated.

4. Our comment system got broken by the same wordpress update I had no control over:

As mentioned in point 2, in April wordpress.com threw out a major update on https, and this same update also changed the way comments get moderated.

It used to be that comments that were flagged by our banned word list (expletives, hot button words, etc.) would simply be held for moderation. The person who wrote the comment could still see the comment, and that it hadn’t been approved yet, but now with this new update, those flagged comments that need the attention of a moderator to determine if it violates WUWT site policy simply get sent to the trashbin, and disappear from the view of the commenter. This might give the impression to some whose comments disappear that we are engaging in wholesale censorship, we aren’t. But again, this change was out of my control when it was implemented by wordpress.com. I sent in a trouble ticket and this was the response from the Akismet service that handles spam filtering and the moderation system for wordpress.com:

Hi Anthony,

Unfortunately, there’s no way to change what happens to comments that match the blacklist. However, have you considered using the Comment Moderation list instead? It’s on the same settings screen as the blacklist, and comments that match the Moderation list will be left in Pending Approval status instead of being approved or moved to the spam or trash. Then, you wouldn’t need to monitor the spam or trash, and you could just focus on the moderation queue.

Chris F.

Akismet

I’m in the process of working on this today and tomorrow, so hopefully the issue will be resolved. That said, there’s another much bigger problem, see point #5 below.

5. Some commenters have simply gotten out of control.

WUWT is the most viewed and most commented on website in the world related to climate. As of this writing, there are 273,124,092 views and 1,782,475 comments. Obviously, there’s no way I could read all of those comments, there simply isn’t enough time in my life. Early on in WUWT history I did read each and every comment, now it’s an impossibility. WUWT used to be entirely moderated, and every comment required approval, but the task was tedious and mostly thankless, and we lost some very good people who volunteered to help me manage this crushing load by attrition and by death.

Due to WUWT being a high traffic blog and in the top 10 of wordpress.com blogs worldwide on a daily basis, it is a prime target for spammers. This adds to the load, but the recent change by wordpress.com mentioned in item 4 may actually help solve this issue while creating a new one.

In August 2014, I announced a change to WUWT that I thought would improve it on several fronts. Format was a big change, the way comments were dealt with was another. I wrote then:

Also, some comments may be held for moderation, as we’ve recently added some words to that filter. Some people who have been known to post wildly off-topic, long rants, hateful, or otherwise inappropriate comments will get the inspection of a moderator. Also, first time commenters will be held in moderation, and after the first comment is approved, you are whitelisted.

The vast majority of regular commenters are also whitelisted, but occasionally somebody may trigger moderation. One of the surest ways for your comment to be held is to put a whole bunch of links in it, which mimic commercial spam. Right now we have it set to 4 links as the maximum. If you have a comment that requires more than that, try to break it up into two comments, or just accept that your comment will be held for moderation.

In retrospect, the whitelisting thing was a bad idea, because it allowed some unscrupulous types, as well as people with no sense of decorum or decency, to post a single innocuous comment, which gets approved by a moderator and putting them on the whitelist, to then post comments where they aren’t flagged for moderation at all. As a result, the quality of commentary has eroded, and I’ve had to ban several people who only come here to spew invective, hate, and rants.

Because WUWT often gets linked on Drudge, Instapundit, and other political traffic drivers (because after all climate has become mostly political now) we’ve had an influx of people (from both sides) that don’t understand anything about the issues, but simply regurgitate talking points. This gets tedious, fast.

Some are here for nefarious purposes. We’ve had a couple of people who have taken sockpuppeting beyond what even Doug Cotton does  which caused Dr. Roy Spencer to stop accepting comments on his website. No this is even worse; we have two people assuming the persona of another poster. We have clearly identified who these people are (because in your zeal to denigrate, you made mistakes), and we’ve been documenting your behavior for months. if you are reading this (and you know who you are), let this be notice that you’ll be seeing some legal paperwork appear soon, because frankly I’m tired of both of you and your illegal actions, and the people you have impersonated using their full names are furious. I don’t blame them. You deserve some payback and you are going to get it.

It just goes to show how pathetic some people are when it comes to a disagreement of opinion. The AGW proponents use illegal and nefarious tactics like this rather than open and honest debate. Then, they wonder why they are viewed with contempt.

After Dr. Spencer stopped accepting comments, I considered the idea as well. If I didn’t have to deal with comments, I could accomplish a lot more. OTOH, many of the comments are quite useful. I wanted to see what readers thought, so I ran a poll with his commentary:

Indeed, and the amount of energy expended by me and others is great. We walk a very fine line here, trying to balance giving a legitimate forum to open and honest people, while ferreting out and limiting people who simply want to disrupt the conversation via sockpuppetry. It is a lot of work. If I didn’t have volunteer moderators for WUWT, I probably would have gone the way of Spencer long ago. Since we routinely process a thousand or more comments a day here, many of which are from sockpuppeters and posers (you know who you are with special attention to K-man) It would certainly give me more time to research and write articles. It’s certainly less effort.

Here are the results:

suspend-comments-poll

 

There are a few ways that I’m going to deal with this on the short-term. First, you are going to start seeing notices like this image below appear on threads. It is going to be a fair warning to those that aren’t following site policy.

housekeeping-place-clean-sign

We have serial offenders on both sides, they’ll get equal treatment. If the thread gets unruly after that, I’ll simply close it. I have better things to do than moderate idiotic food fights.

Second, for the long-term, in the not too distant future, I’m going to implement changes to the way comments are moderated. To that end, I ask readers the following questions:

  • In the first option, requiring registration will mean that your real name and email will have to be verified. It is a lot of work up-front, but it weeds out sockpuppets and posers for good. Successful blogs like “Little Green Footballs” use this technique. The downside is that it limits open debate on the spur of the moment and tends toward a closed community.
  • The second option, requiring that all comments be held for moderation is what WUWT used to do from 2006 to 2014, but it is a huge amount of work. I’ll need more volunteer moderators to pull this off.
  • The third option, running a detailed filter, would send known disruptors, sockpuppets, and comments with expletives, banned words (like chemtrails, bigfoot, etc) directly to the trash were they won’t be recovered. Steve McIntyre does a version of this on Climate Audit, though he gets a small fraction of the comments we get. He never bothers to recover those comments, but instead concentrates his limited time on content.
  • The fourth option, turning off comments altogether solves the time and effort problem completely, prevents disruption, and allows focus on content exclusively. The downside is that the free exchange of ideas, some of which are very useful, dies with it.

6. What do you think? I can make articles on WUWT “peer-reviewed” before publication.

For technical articles, I have a way where I can invite peer review from both sides of the debate before an article gets published. Links to the unpublished article would be sent to people who have offered to be reviewers (possibly due to a solicitation announcement first) and the article can be checked for accuracy, depth, and citations prior to publication. As we all know, Internet peer review is some of the harshest form of review, but often the best, because it doesn’t invite “pal review” like we’ve seen in climate science circles.

This would be a first, not just for WUWT, but for any climate or science blog as far as I know.

7. WUWT’s ten-year anniversary is coming up

 

I have been doing this non-stop since November 2006, I’d like to take a real vacation to recharge. Even when I have traveled, I keep up the blog. I need a break, but I’m not prepared to go on a one year sabbatical to fix “burn out” like Dave Roberts did.

I’ll need help in the form of guest posters, moderators, etc, and maybe even a little financial help to get me on my way. Willis and I have been talking about a trip to Russia to investigate the cause of the great Red Spot in the surface temperature record.He could blog while we are on the trip like he does when he travels . Thoughts welcome.

8. Hosting – wordpress.com is quickly becoming restrictive

I have danced around this question for years, but the recent changes at wordpress.com that have caused problems cause me to take a good hard look again. I may want to go to a subscription/donor model to make this happen, since getting the features I want for the kind of traffic this blog produces would be several hundred dollars a month. That would mean I’d have the freedom from code restrictions that wordpress.com imposes (they only allow certain features), and could offer features readers have been asking for years, such as comment editing, better threading/numbered threading. Interactive graphs, made with JavaScript etc and much more. It will allow growth, but it will also require more of my time to manage it.

To that end, I thought I’d ask this question:

 

9. Thank you

I realize many of you have become as frustrated as I have with the state of things in the climate debate, and I hope that WUWT can continue to contribute to it in a meaningful way. I owe a debt of gratitude to readers, moderators, and guest essayists. You have my sincerest thanks. Comments about all of these changes and proposed changes are welcome. – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

433 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eliza
May 21, 2016 8:07 pm

Agree with L Hamlin but I don’t think the climate debate has become frustrating ect. Its simply going to disappear over time as there will be/is no major climate change/debate or anything about climate. There will be no interest whatsoever about this subject in 10 years time. my view anyway cheers LOL

afonzarelli
Reply to  Eliza
May 21, 2016 8:35 pm

Yes, very interesting point… ten years from now anthony will be out on the golf course every day; agw (and wuwt along with it) being a thing of the past.

Reply to  Eliza
May 22, 2016 12:21 am

There will be no interest whatsoever about this subject in 10 years time.

Perhaps so. But there may be huge changes for a while if Trump gets in. He might appreciate all the support he can get.

JohnWho
Reply to  Eliza
May 22, 2016 5:05 am

Nah, there will always be “WUWT” questions in science.

michel
Reply to  Eliza
May 22, 2016 7:03 am

I think it will be of enormous interest as an episode in intellectual history. The history of the great saturated fat hysteria is similarly interesting, but the climate thing, assuming the skeptics are correct and nothing much is really going on, will be one of the great classic group thinks and popular delusions. Its huge in scale, and its global. Its fully comparable in scale to the Great Bull Market and Crash of ’29.
People will be reading and writing and thinking about this for many decades to come even if as a substantive issue its been refuted by observation.

Reply to  michel
May 22, 2016 2:10 pm

Anyone read that book on the great Devonian debate in the 19th century? The historian had a lot to work with because of the five deliveries a day mail system of the time and lamented that historians of the future would not have the same kind of material. Little did he know…
When I started commenting I provided real verifiable details and it was easy and it only held me back till I had something worth saying. I had my identity stolen here once and it was dealt with promptly. This is a great site and thanks to all who keep it that way.

Eliza
May 21, 2016 8:15 pm

Although Mr Watts has done a great contribution to the climate debate in my view the greatest site to break the back of the whole scam has been without doubt Mr Tony Heller/aka Steven Goddard from real climate science. His before/after graphs have been incredible and used in the USA congress/senate hearings to really prove the point of complete lies by NASA/NOAA/CT ect

ldd
May 21, 2016 8:25 pm

Anthony, thank you for this incredible site but please do what is best for you too. Whatever you decide to do is your choice, as long as you blog I’ll be reading. Taking a journey like you mentioned maybe exactly what one needs to rejuvenate though. If so, lets set a price goal and get some fund raising going.

May 21, 2016 8:32 pm

Anthony,
I would be honored to help with moderation or peer-review. Like many others, I would like WUWT to remain as open as can be done, and I feel you have done the best job of that I have seen on the web. And, like most here, I cannot even imagine what this has cost you, in every conceivable way.
I favor the concept of requiring verified accounts. I have used my real name from the moment I first got here. I have published a number of essays here under my real name, and have recently been considering penning a few new ones on paleoclimatology, my specialty.
I have very harsh views on Wordmess (aka WordPress). I accept that they offer website hosts many desirable attributes. However, they are the most insular kids I have yet encountered on the web. The difference between confidence and arrogance is competence. As a prelude to beginning construction on a new suite of essays to be offered here I checked on the status of user-friendly whatever’s for Wordmess. I found Wordmess had recently released an “add-in” for WYSIWYG. In attempting to migrate to this I hit the wall called “installation”. Wordmess’ advice: “Install in the usual manner”. Just what, praytell, is “the usual manner”? There comes a time in virtually everything for that unique moment commonly known as “the very first time”. The “usual manner” for software installation has never been present in any technology injection I have ever received. Arrogance, pure and simple.
And this happens to be the second message I have attempted to post on this thread this evening. The first was obliterated because after 4 months of trying, I still cannot get Wordmess to “get it” that I have a new main email address (a weird and quite unusual thing precipitated by, of all things, actually moving outside of my previous ISPs service area!). I just had to reset my password for the umpteenth time! Who knows if this post will survive the “Post Comment” button.
A few years ago I instructed my investment advisors to be absolutely certain that I was not in any fund in any way associated with Wordmess. And that is a very short list. Sorry about the rant, but as a contributor of carefully researched and written essays and comments I have found nothing positive about Wordmess.
Again, I am available to help should you have need. And once again, you are providing a much needed service to humanity here at WUWT. No thanks is enough.

eyesonu
May 21, 2016 8:37 pm

Anthony, I will support you regardless of the decisions you need to make. You have created a world class blog and that is a lifetime achievement. You should be very proud.
A couple of ideas possibly worth consideration:
1) A monthly tip drive (sticky for a couple of days)
2) Consult with McIntyre, Spencer, etc. about combining forces under the banner of WUWT and Associates. Open WUWT and then portals (?) or open doors/links to the Climate Audit, etc similar to the links/buttons that you now have at the top of the page (e.g. Tips and notes, reference pages, etc).
3) Similar to #2 but a category for technical related postings and commentary only. No cheer-leading or general comments permitted, only those adding to the discussion.
4) Similar to #3 but a general category for posts allowing less moderation in comments.
The general concept could allow a visitor to step in to WUWT and then enter the room that would be of the most interest to them. I would likely wear the hinges off the doors but would surely spend quite a bit of time in the technical room.
I would not object to registering my real name for your moderating needs, but only if it were not to be made public. WUWT would be the only site that I will have ever done so.
Anyway, this is a most valuable resource and I hope the readers will hit the tip jar if they are financially able.
Take that break you need. You have earned it !!!

May 21, 2016 8:40 pm

I’ve been with you since the beginning and will stick with you regardless of whether the site is free or by subscription basis. You do excellent work and present a diversity of views.
I’m in for a contribution for a vacation and/or rejuvenation time off.

RoHa
May 21, 2016 8:53 pm

Impose a $10 fine for every misused comma. (One writer and a few commenters would quickly go broke.) Then extend the policy to other grammatical errors. Hire a professional editor to find them and a couple of kneecap breakers to collect the dosh. They’d soon pay for themselves, and you’d be rolling in it. You deserve it, for all the work you have put in.

RoHa
May 21, 2016 8:55 pm

IOU $10 for a missing comma in the above post.

JohnWho
Reply to  RoHa
May 22, 2016 5:54 am

Would one get paid, for example, if they used, perhaps, too many, commas?

RoHa
Reply to  JohnWho
May 22, 2016 8:37 pm

Nope. No. Missing and superfluous commas would be penalised equally.

JohnWho
Reply to  JohnWho
May 23, 2016 6:04 am

Oh, Geez, that means I am, in trouble.

RoHa
Reply to  JohnWho
May 24, 2016 9:14 pm

Double trouble if we add a penalty for inconsisten pronouns.
“Would one get paid, for example, if ONE used….”

RoHa
Reply to  JohnWho
May 24, 2016 9:15 pm

Another $10 for a missing “t”.

Michael Carter
May 21, 2016 9:21 pm

Anthony – Thank you for the work you do. It is extremely important in the current ‘climate’. Personally, I don’t like the tone of the political sniping but the science info coming though makes it all worth while. Thanks to those guest posters who take the time to compile the excellent up-to-date summaries.
I would subscribe at $5 US but start to think at $10. Take into account exchange rates that can make things more expensive for those of us outside of the US – especially in developing countries

Editor
May 21, 2016 10:07 pm

Comments:
Subscriptions; howabout $5/month or $50/year?
Registration; yes, userID and password; but allow pseudonyms. I’m retired, but some people could face job repercussions.
Peer review; It depends. A research-type post, especially with some math bethind it, should be subjected to at least mildly hostile peer-review. If it can’t stand that, what happens when the warmists start tearing into it? But there are some “breaking news” type posts, which would look stale with even a few days’ delay.
On the other hand, just about every post could use “editorial review”, i.e. another pair of eyes to check for typos and grammatical errors, if that can be done with minimal delay. I’ve got a bit of “grammar-nazi” in me, and I’d volunteer for such a position.

noaaprogrammer
May 21, 2016 10:19 pm

Thanks to Anthony, WUWT is such a great blog site, that I want my great…great grandchildren to have access to it with whatever personal interactive devices exist in the future. (Afterall, the CAGWers keep moving their tipping points and catastrophic prognostications.)
The problem is, many good organizations die with the demise of their founders. WUWT should be put on a secure enough foundation that it outlives Anthony. It should always be a site dedicated to scientific endeavors that always incorporate a healthy dose of skepticism.
LONG LIVE WUWT!!

Hoplite
May 21, 2016 10:30 pm

Anthony, I have seen several websites (such as Irishtimes.com) continually restrict commenting to the point that it barely happens now compared to what used to happen. In my opinion, the commenting here (as it was in the Irish Times) is at least as important, and probably significantly more so, than the articles themselves. A lot of people get very worked up over inconsiderate or disruptive posters. Of course they have to be dealt with and that takes some time but readers quickly filter through them and get to the good ones themselves without significant moderation – so they are a lot less disruptive than people think. I know I, for one, would read this website much less if comments get turned off. Highly restrictive registration would lead this to become an inward looking site for skeptics only. The fact that people on both sides of the debate post here is a sign of the success and not deterioration or weakness of this website. If it reverts to skeptics only it will be much the worse for it.
Thank you for all your work and dedication. I hope you get that holiday you clearly deserve.

Travis Casey
May 21, 2016 10:34 pm

With all the traffic on this site I would think accepting advertisers would be a simple solution to the financial issue. Turn this place into a money maker and that helps with several of the issues.

May 21, 2016 10:39 pm

Hmmmm, $1 per comment for the first ten comments each month then free.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Steve Case
May 22, 2016 5:25 am

Accounting nightmare.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 22, 2016 6:28 am

Tom in Florida May 22, 2016 at 5:25 am
Accounting nightmare.

Keeping track of events, money and dates is what computers do for us. It’s not a nightmare.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 22, 2016 7:15 am

Yes, but not for such a minute amount. If you were to set up the system and have to deal with it, the price must be higher to make it worth while.

Eki
May 21, 2016 11:04 pm

In many cases, I don’t understand the article in full. The comments help me and they also help to understand what it means in different countries.

Robert
May 21, 2016 11:11 pm

This is the bible for CAGW debunking , find a way to keep it going .
From OZ

old construction worker
May 21, 2016 11:35 pm

I’d support subscriptions as long as the price is not out of sight. This old construction worker is retiring in a few months and will be on a fixed income. I like the idea about “peer review” Registration: I remember many, many years ago Anthony asked for our real name and occupation. I don’t know if he kept that information in his data base or not, but I don’t mind the “Registration” as long as I don’t have to do it ever time I make a comment.

TomL
May 22, 2016 12:17 am

just my 2c for whatever it’s worth (if anything)
I have absolutely no problem with viewing ads FROM THE SITES but I get infuriated by certain sites that use tools like Disqus and ad placement/analytic tools and then whine about how *I* an evil because I won’t view “their ads” when what they are doing is not placing ads but “selling souls”. Most of these ad placement services are central collection sites and make their money by aggregating all the information about every site you make a comment on and selling you on to advertisers and God knows who else. Here – if you will just go to these people and let them accumulate all the little bit of pieces of your browsing into one giant database they will toss me a few pennies.
Put your ads right on your site (whoever – not aiming at WUWT) and I will be more than happy to view your ad. Sell my soul to Google or whoever and NO, I will use my blockers. Right now in addition to my blockers I have literally hundreds of names in my hosts file. I am starting to believe the three letter agencies are saints and looking out for my best interests when compared to these people. I would (and do I guess) trust WUWT with my information but I do not want it passed on to who knows what companies for who knows what purposes.
I would love to be able to sit down with the Marketing people at many of the huge companies whose sites I frequent regularly and discuss whether they really know what they are doing. Yes, I know it brings in money but having worked in IT for many many (far too many) years before I retired I know that sales and marketing people are often totally clueless when approached by sales people who promise them money to install tools to help them get information about their viewers or for “showing ads”. Maybe I am just too cynical but when someone offers to pay me to help me I know I am having my leg pulled and start looking for the real costs. Maybe these departments are clueless and maybe they are just greedy, it makes no difference to me.
All that said… I would really hate to lose seeing comments on WUWT. There are so many people with knowledge far beyond mine who give freely of it that it would be a huge loss but I will stand on a privacy principle. Put ads directly on your site Anthony and I promise to examine every single one of them but if it is a link to a 3rd party you can be sure I will never see whatever it is.

Frank
May 22, 2016 1:21 am

Andy: I would rather that you asked me to donate to WUWT rather than subscribe. If I am paying, then I have a right to complain when I don’t like what I see. If I’m donating, it is to thank you and your staff for what you do. If you went the donation route, you would be faced with a contract that would need to be signed and you would need to see what people were willing to pledge upfront. You also may find that some of your volunteers might expect to be paid from subscriptions. And it will be hard to attract new readers. This blog belongs to you and those who help you; please do what you think best. But do think about what will change. How many other blogs have made the transition to paid subscribers?
I wish you could peer review posts with “original science”. In the eyes of this perfectionist, at least half appears badly flawed. News stories and opinion pieces don’t really need peer review.
The worst posts at your blog are original science from authors who never bother to respond to comments. IMO, the post cited below was grossly wrong and the author never showed up to respond to anyone. I recognize your desire to provide a forum for alternative scientific opinions – but mildly disagree, since science is about data and logical conclusions, not opinion. If you are going to allow dubious materials to appear under your name, then the least you can do is ask your authors to defend their work.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/12/negative-climate-feedbacks-are-real-and-large/comment-page-1/#comment-2219595
I’d be happy to help peer review. I suspect real peer review moderated by an editor will be too challenging. The best peer reviewer can probably due is point out areas of disagreement and let debate continue in the comments. The goal would simply be to alert readers to possible problems – and not resolve all of the differences between the author and peer reviewer. If the submitter wants to make substantial changes in response to “corrections” from peer review, then send it out for review again.
Thank you for all of the effort that goes into this website.

Tim Neilson
May 22, 2016 1:53 am

Prioritise your health Anthony. Everything else is secondary.

Editor
May 22, 2016 2:03 am

re Peer-review: I think peer-reviewing all articles would slow down the publishing process quite badly and would make it difficult to react to situations quickly. Maybe just selected articles could be peer-reviewed. But simply by making each article open to comment is a form of peer-review. It is noticeable how many articles’ errors or questionable aspects get picked up in the comments.
If peer-review is introduced for at least some articles, then I suggest that
1. The peer-reviews should be published with the article and should not be anonymous. That doesn’t mean that a reviewer’s full name has to be given, just that each reviewer should be identified with their regular id.
2. Each article’s page would then be structured so that there are three sections: the article itself, the reviews, and the comments. This would then allow an article to be published before being reviewed – reviews as they came in would go into the reviews section. There could be indication whether all reviews are in.
3. If an article is bad enough (or controversial enough!) that one or more reviewers recommend rejection, I don’t think there is a problem if it is published anyway, since the “reject” advice will be clearly visible.
re Comments: I accept that this is a difficult area. However, some time ago, WUWT transitioned from moderation-before to moderation-after, and on the whole it has gone well. Certainly an occasional offensive comment gets through, but the audience here is reasonably mature in its attitude, knows what the process is, and can generally make allowance. I would hate to see any requirement for subscription for commenting – I think a great strength of WUWT is that is truly open to all. WUWT compares ultfra-favourably with outfits like the BBC that print biased crap with no comments allowed at all.
With WUWT’s popularity has come an overabundance of comments. This does devalue the comments from the point of view of readers who get value from both the article and the comments. But maybe that is just the price that has to be paid, and people really do like to feel that they can have their say too. I think it would be very reasonable to just accept that the comments sections are going to overflow with lower-quality stuff and not worry about it (but misbehaving commenters would still need to be banned of course). Maybe a “Reviews” section would be a good compromise – even if there are far too many comments to read, the reviews section would still provide high-quality added value.
re WUWT in general: WUWT has been an absolute phenomenon, and an enormously important lesson in how to conduct an open intelligent forum. The presence of regular contributors who clearly support CAGW to at least some extent is a credit to AW and an extremely valuable part of WUWT. I would add “long may it continue”, only I would actually prefer it if WUWT was no longer needed.

blcjr
Editor
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 22, 2016 4:51 am

I thought about it before voting on peer review, but then opted for “yes” because Anthony said it was for “technical” posts only, not all posts. No need to peer review the “news” that gets posted here, which is probably the larger volume of posts, though not always the posts generating the most comments. I don’t see the value in posting reviewer comments. If they are negative, we never even see the submitted post. We would always know that the review was positive if the article gets posted. I realize you recommend still publishing the negatively reviewed posts, with the review(s), but I don’t think that was intended. And I am not sure that is such a good idea. I would hope that certain who might become reviewers do not get automatic vetos on posts that run contrary to their known views about some things. It is a tough choice all around.
Basil

Editor
Reply to  blcjr
May 22, 2016 4:11 pm

I realize you recommend still publishing the negatively reviewed posts, with the review(s), but I don’t think that was intended.“. It really was intended. Who is to say that the reviewers are more right than the writer of the article? By putting it all in front of people, they see the whole argument. “Gate-keeping” activity is a scourge of the journals, and that would be more difficult to achieve if the reviewers gate-keepers knew that their reviews were open, OTOH a writer getting credibly negative reviews would struggle to retain any influence. Even if an article that got past AW and his team into WUWT was so truly awful that it had to be removed, it would still be better to simply put a “Rejected” sticker across it and leave it there together with its reviews – the point being that it is better for everyone to learn than it is to save face.

Reply to  blcjr
May 22, 2016 6:33 pm

Mike Jonas says:
“Gate-keeping” activity is a scourge of the journals…
Spot on. That nefarious activity can be seen in the Climategate emails, where the gate-keepers cackle about keeping skeptics’ papers out, “even if we have to re-define the peer review process”.
Articles and comments posted here are much better and more honest peer review than can be found in the journals. Mann, Jones, and others have shown they play favorites. They are underhanded about it. That’s not science, that’s advocacy.
As Mike says, that kind of gate-keeping is the scourge of the journals; in particular, climate related journals. They are undermining science for their own self-serving reasons. The question is: how do we get them back on the right track?

emsnews
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 22, 2016 6:33 am

Once upon a time, the NYT had this HUGE comment platform where one could suggest a topic and then chat about it for months at a time. I ran a dozen such bases there when one day, after 9/11, they began to ban one after another in rapid succession until they dumped the entire thing overboard. Then they dumped story-related comments until it now averages one or two stories that are heavily censored these days.
No point in going over there anymore, I go only to mock them at my own website. This has happened across the entire internet, internationally, and is now at ridiculous levels of censorship, people just aren’t allowed to chat with each other, anywhere, these days. This site is one of the few remaining sites that allows this.

TA
Reply to  emsnews
May 22, 2016 10:22 am

emsnews wrote: “people just aren’t allowed to chat with each other, anywhere, these days. This site is one of the few remaining sites that allows this.”
USENET is still a free place on the internet to say what you want.
Of course, unmoderated USENET newsgroups can be a free-for-all, but by using Moderated newsgroups you can weed out the undesirables. Anyone can set up a newsgroup on any subject for free.
USENET is real good at text-only communications. Lots of really good software that can keep you right up to date on what you are interested in.
Websites are real good at displaying graphics, which is their only advantage to USENET, IMO. Although that is a pretty good advantagte.
What discussion websites need is the same quality of discussion software that one can get with USENET software. Then we could have the best of both worlds.
Although I haven’t used that many different website discussion software, none of the ones I used was nearly as easy to use as my Agent USENET software. The WordPress software isn’t even close, I’m sorry to say.

geran
May 22, 2016 2:30 am

Anthony, most of the issues you mention have simple solutions. But, what you seem to be misunderstanding is that you DO censor science. In fact, you have a history of attacking people who offer conflicting theories to your dedicated “lukewarmer” position.
Yes, there are those that “thread-bomb”, and offer such nonsense pseudoscience that they should be dealt with. And, as mentioned in previous comments, a simple system of a warning, followed by a 1-3 month suspension should easily handle obnoxious offenders.
It’s possible that by censoring skeptics, you have prolonged the debate, which makes it appear you have benefited from such a questionable practice.

u.k(us)
Reply to  geran
May 22, 2016 12:45 pm

geran,
Just how far do your projections take you ?
Might be worth a paper in itself.

Reply to  geran
May 22, 2016 4:09 pm

It is a shame that almost all sites will sooner or later censor those who have come to a different conclusion from the mainstream at that site. If one is a hard core skeptic, being censored or “put down” is just the way it is.
I do think that we should be allowed to at least link to posts that back up our position even if that link goes to a place the host does not like. But then the host has every right to make that call.
Such is life.

Gabro
Reply to  geran
May 22, 2016 4:21 pm

Great as the influence of WUWT is, I find it hard to believe that its censorship policies have affected public acceptance of skeptical positions.
I do however take issue with the way in which censorship on this valuable blog has worked to date. Anthony of course is free to censor as he sees fit, but IMHO the policies of WUWT are inconsistent and harmful to the skeptical case (I don’t say “cause”, as do the Warmunistas).
The “Slayers”, who d@ny the GHE, are not without cause banned, as is Tony Heller, for having once made a mistake. On that basis then MIT’s eminent Dr. Lindzen might well also be banned.
Yet, as much noted among alarmists, WUWT gladly suffers waves of creationist commenters, each more poorly informed and crazed than the next. This gives aid and comfort to AGW proponents who delight almost as much in labeling skeptics anti-science as in tools of Big Oil.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Gabro
May 22, 2016 6:31 pm

Were Darwin alive today, he may well have been a creationist…

Editor
Reply to  geran
May 22, 2016 4:22 pm

geran – In a comment above, I said “The presence of regular contributors who clearly support CAGW to at least some extent is a credit to AW and an extremely valuable part of WUWT.”. Any conversation that does not address both sides of an argument is not much of a conversation. If you have views that run counter to others’ here, then please put them forward. If you go in for personal attack then expect to get bruised, but if you put forward arguments with supporting evidence then you may be surprised to find that most here will treat your arguments on their merits.
Oh, and your comment wasn’t censored. It was published.

Editor
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 22, 2016 4:35 pm

PS. Yes your comment was “censored” – my apologies – but it was removed by WordPress not by WUWT mods.

geran
May 22, 2016 2:58 am

“Comments about all of these changes and proposed changes are welcome. – Anthony”
>>>> So, I make a valid and constructive comment, and it gets “censored”!
Hilarious.

May 22, 2016 3:08 am

There are so many things … I have not read all the comments but there are lot of good tips.
1) We all get older but I wish You all the best.
2) 3) Technical problems beyond our hands, I think. Nice though you inform us readers.
4) A technical problem that may be can solved by point 8.
5) A psychological problem that may be solved by registering.
6) Blogs “peer-reviewing” are made afterward by comments but if you have work force to reviewing before publication then quality rise a bit and publication have a couple of days delay, I think. When climatology has minimal time span of 30 years the delay is not an issue. About climate politics it can be.
7) Marvellous idea. If you like to visit in Finland during the trip and made some presentation Pasi J. Matilainen may be the correct person to contact.
http://www.ilmastofoorumi.fi/tietoa-ilmastofoorumista/yhdistys/
8) Going to hosted virtual server or something like that may resolve some problems mention above. It is sad though if it needs paywall. Some decline in readership predicting.
9) Thank a lot You.

May 22, 2016 3:24 am

I have to say that for some posts the comments have more value than the article, as there are such wonderful commenters as Dr. Leif Svalgaard, Ferdinand Engelbeen and so on.
Anthony, you should take a long vacation. Global warming will be here when you get back as it isn’t going anywhere. It would be a pity if you were to shut down shop when La Niña appears to be ready to give us 2-3 cool years that can make 21st century the century without warming.

emsnews
Reply to  Javier
May 22, 2016 6:29 am

Absolutely, the comments tend to be the best part of any ‘article’. Often, it is the part that ‘educates’ us by giving us great information.

Reply to  Javier
May 22, 2016 10:42 am

I agree with Javier and emsnews. Often, I learn more from the comments here than from the articles. Even article authors are surprised by comments, which raise issues they hadn’t thought of.
Both articles and comments are essential. Without comments, site traffic would be drastically reduced.
As it is, WUWT gets far more traffic, meaning far more eyeballs, than almost any other science blog. I don’t understand why that cannot be turned into revenue. Rather than asking readers to donate (which is OK, but an unreliable income source), I think readers would be willing to have some advertising. Maybe a poll would answer that question.
Anthony puts in so much time keeping this site going that he deserves compensation. We see ads everywhere else. Most of us just ignore them. But they provide income, so that would seem to be a goood compromise between nothing, and asking readers to buy subscriptions.

Reply to  dbstealey
May 23, 2016 3:52 am

Yes. don’t know why some people are complaining about censorship. Nothing of mine has ever been censored, except during some confusion when one of the impostors Anthony mentioned forged my name on a series of hate posts, but that was not due to any fault on the WUWT team’s part. That aside, I have said my piece no fear no favour. If I post and the comment doesn’t appear, I wait a while and it pops up. Maybe some people are just too impatient? This is a volunteer effort and we aren’t entitled to instant service.

Verified by MonsterInsights