Another blog update

As a test, a couple of changes have been made to the blog as a result of some pathetic pleading by our commentators:

1. If you cast your eyes to the right hand side, you will see that the recent comments are sorted into threads. This is to prevent one popular thread from flooding the recent comments so that no others can be seen. A maximum of five different threads can appear with their own list of recent comments.

2. Commenters can now put inline images into comments using the tag < img src="http://url-to-image&quot; style="width: 800px; height: 600px;" />. Please do not put in images larger than 800×600 without using the width: and height: parameters so as not to have the pictures disappear partially under the sidebar, or cause any other nasty things to happen.

If the image is smaller than 800×600 then you can omit the style="width: 800px; height: 600px;"

I need hardly add that any abuse of this facility to post inappropriate images will result in banning without warning regardless of the commenters self-perceived expertise in climate science or personal philosophy of freedom of expression.

As an example, (and note: I’ve put an extra space between the < and img so that it won’t be interpreted as a tag, but you’ll have to leave it out), the code
< img src="http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/polyakov.gif&quot; />
will produce

These facilities have been added as a test – Steve may decide to withdraw them if he feels they are detrimental.


26 Comments

  1. Pat Frank
    Posted Jun 8, 2006 at 7:40 PM | Permalink

    John A says, “I need hardly add that any abuse of this facility to post inappropriate images will result in banning without warning regardless of the commenters self-perceived expertise in climate science or personal philosophy of freedom of expression.

    You’ve already posted John Hunter’s picture, John. What are a few naked ladies after that? :-)

  2. John Baltutis
    Posted Jun 8, 2006 at 7:49 PM | Permalink

    It’s not displaying 5 by 5 on my machine. It shows two threads, the first with 4 comments by TCO and second with 1 comment by TCO. Maybe there haven’t been any others since you’ve implemented the change. I’ll come back and update after sending this.

  3. John Baltutis
    Posted Jun 8, 2006 at 7:52 PM | Permalink

    Re: #2. OK. Looks like it’s restricting to five total comments, no matter the thread. There are now two in this thread, two in the road map, and one in Jacoby. More tweaking needed.

  4. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Jun 8, 2006 at 11:19 PM | Permalink

    I don’t like the new style. It’s too hard to see what’s new and what’s not. Plus it’s only got a few threads so I miss (I think) threads which have newish messages. If it could do something like show the last 10 threads with new messages and how many in the last 24 hours (if any) it’d be much more useful. Otherwise I’d prefer the most recent messages as before.

  5. John A
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 12:25 AM | Permalink

    Re #2,3,4 OK. I’ll tweak the settings on the recent comments

    Re #1 Them’s fightin’ words!

  6. John A
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 12:37 AM | Permalink

    OK, I’ve changed it to the last 15 comments, maximum 5 comments per thread.

  7. fFreddy
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 1:50 AM | Permalink

    John, thank you, this is good stuff.
    My view is that when I look at an updated thread, I am probably going to read all the new comments on it. Therefore, I do not care how many new comments there are, just that the thread has been updated.
    Therefore, can I pathetically plead further that :
    1) the number of comments per thread should be set to 1 (or even zero if possible). This will greatly increase readability.
    1a) If the text of the comment were set to “not Bold”, while the title of the thread remains on Bold, this would also be easier to read.
    2) the number of threads should be left at 10 (you don’t tend to have more active threads than that, do you ?)
    3) if possible, the date/time of the last comment on each thread is more useful than the first few words of the comment
    Thanks again.

  8. fFreddy
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 2:20 AM | Permalink

    Actuallly, I withdraw the zero comments per thread suggestion and the date/time only suggestion. One comment per thread (and font change) will provide the key information about whether you’ve seen it already, and greatly improve readability.

  9. Armand MacMurray
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 2:53 AM | Permalink

    Stay the course!
    1) Like fF, I agree this is good stuff.
    2) Unlike fF, I want to see all 5 newest threads per topic, so I can be tempted to look in on a topic by seeing that a must-read(IMHO) poster has posted there.

  10. TCO
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 7:01 AM | Permalink

    I agree with Ffreddy.

  11. Paul Penrose
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 7:31 AM | Permalink

    I agree with Armand. If I see that the last five posts to a thread are all from TCO, then maybe I’ll skip it. If they are all from Peter H. and his posse then I can definately skip the thread. Keep it like it is now.

  12. John Adams
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 9:03 AM | Permalink

    yess, images!

    here the climate history of The Netherland following the definition of Vladimir Kàƒ⵰pen

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification

  13. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

    oops: guess who was John Adams ;-)

  14. Paul
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    JohnA,

    I’d recommend a different, less “bold” font for the sidebar. Maybe bold heads and more normal text for the content? Should be a quick-n-easy thing to do. It would help with the readability.

  15. Ashby
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    re graphic from comment #12

    Why does it seem like every chart begins at the end of the last little ice age? Why not 1500 CE? Or 1000?

    One almost suspects the sample period is chosen to guarantee an upward bias over time.

  16. TCO
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 12:44 PM | Permalink

    On side bar: The order of the threads is most recent to latest (reading down). But the order of the comments is opposite. Recommend changing so that order of comments is latest to earliest. That makes ergonomic sense.

  17. John A
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    Re #13

    No, you’ve got me. Who was John Adams?

  18. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    re graphic from comment #12

    Why does it seem like every chart begins at the end of the last little ice age? Why not 1500 CE? Or 1000?

    One almost suspects the sample period is chosen to guarantee an upward bias over time

    umm these are real observations with a thermometer, they start in 1706 because the measurements started then.

  19. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 9, 2006 at 9:57 PM | Permalink

    John A, I think that the new comment threading is a big improvement. Thanks, Steve

  20. cytochrome_sea
    Posted Jun 10, 2006 at 5:34 AM | Permalink

    Apologies for being off-topic, (and btw, good job on the improvements) but I think it’s interesting to note how one can see where, on this blog Steve M. and John A. agree at times, but also ‘allow’ themselves to disagree as well.

    It seems to me to contrast a bit with the realclimate blog where there seem to be quite rare disagreements or corrections amongst/betwixt regular authors and/or contributing authors. My perception might be a bit off though as I’m a more regular reader of this one.

  21. John A
    Posted Jun 10, 2006 at 5:54 AM | Permalink

    Re #20

    Steve and I occasionally disagree on procedural things, like how much editorializing there should be, and how much latitude to give to certain comments or commentators, but generally it works quite well.

    Most of the time, I find out what Steve’s pulled out of the statistical rabbit hole at the same time as everyone else. Most of the time, I make changes to the weblog and then Steve finds out at the same time as everyone else.

    I don’t post at RealClimate because there’s no guarantee that anything written, no matter how accurate, will make it through the censorship and because (and I’m not the only person who thinks this) the ideological slant of most of the posts is just creepy – and by creepy I mean neither liberal creepy nor conservative creepy but swivel-eyed skin-crawling creepy. The kind of creepy that make you want to check you wineglass for odd smells before tasting any.

  22. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 10, 2006 at 7:08 AM | Permalink

    This topic here on realclimate is proof of what kind of a place it really is:

    http://www.realclimate.org/wp-comments-popup.php?p=242&c=1

    I am commenting as “justahousewife”.
    They posted my comment as #1. Kept me from replying until they completely formed a character profile in the comments regarding my “state of mind”. Prevented me from replying to anything said directly to me and about me.

    “I personally think it is sad (and dangerous) to see how big oil, coal and gas has manipulated peoples’ opinions like hers”

    ” I know is must be hard for mothers to contemplate the possibility that what (most) scientists say about GW is true”

    “You think Wife is a little off, I have someone called The Lumo sniping at me now for conspiring with the ‘commie climate cabal’ …”

    “Am I the only one expecting to hear the esteemed housewife say, ‘yeah, but if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?’

    Also, when I said my husband was an evironmental geologist the moderator william said this:

    “Re geologists: well, to be somewhat flippant, geologists study rocks, which don’t have much to do with climate change. ”

    Then Gavin said these things:

    “Oh, and just to show good will, I even corrected your spelling”

    “Comments are moderated according to our comment policy to try and a) keep things focussed, b) maintain a certain level of decorum and c) keep unnecessary personalisations and ad homs out of the scientific debate. If you stick to the science you’ll be fine, if you prefer to flame, you might be happier on sci.env. – gavin]”

    (he spells” focused” wrong)

    Gavin also didn’t allow me to reply in context either, allowed others comment before me (and my comments had science links in them that somehow disappeared) They he allowed Dano to lecture me on various “questions” I must have, and gave me links to read, as if I didn’t know what I was talking about.

    Anyway, I am off topic sorry!
    This still makes me livid and proves to me what’s really going on at RC and it has nothing to do with science. I really thank CA for doing what it does. And Steve, thank you for writing me back when I pointed you to what happened to to me at RC. Made all the difference in the world to me, and besides being a smart cookie you are kind and fair. I am not trying to be a kiss ass either! Heh!

    You know, the character of a person should not have anything to do with data or the procedures realated to the science of climate, but I really think it factors in: at least to me it does.

  23. John A
    Posted Jun 10, 2006 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    c) keep unnecessary personalisations and ad homs out of the scientific debate

    Well if Gavin said that he should then take a look at a comment made on RC referring to what label to give climate skeptics

    link

    This is the Hockey Team, so unnecessary personalizations and ad homs are deliberately kept in and scientific debate excluded.

    5….4….3….2….1….

  24. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 10, 2006 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

    John A,

    Not to continue to gripe, but I find it also interesting that certain Hockey Team types demand to know who you are, if you been published, were you work or who funds your research if you make any headway or valid points in the debate.

    If they have control over the debate however, with their delete buttons or do know your real name… they don’t care! After all, it then explains your intelligence level (especially if you a ‘nobody in paticular” like a housewife) and the validity of your information/comments, and of course your real intentions.

    Whatever the case may be this behavior and these demands always take top priority over the actual facts or scientific truth.

    JustAHouseWife was spoken to as a “stereotypical housewife” too. How intelligent is that? LOL

    What is ironic is that we do know who Gavin is, where he works and how to get in touch with him, and who pays him. It doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t stop these people because they have a “Consensus” don’t you know!

    If someone said their name was “WarmerMan@hotmail.com” it would make not make a bit of difference to me. I’d still form opinions about the science or argument they made, not who they are, and I’d still pdf’them data if they asked.
    Truth stands-up under any circumstances.
    Cheers!

  25. Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 5:50 AM | Permalink

    That’s a brave decision, to allow images. Now your blog will be full of graphs that prove global warming, such as these two:

  26. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Aug 22, 2006 at 10:14 AM | Permalink

    RE: #26 – I get it, global average temperature is inversely proportional to the volume of White House interns’ posteriors! ;)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,309 other followers

%d bloggers like this: