2007 Weblog Poll Closes Nov 8

Update 6.30 pm Eastern: Access to the voting seems to be easier again. BA is more than 250 votes ahead tho.

Bump. climateaudit is running a strong 2nd about 200 votes ahead of last year’s winner (Pharyngula) and about 500 votes behind Bad Astronomy. Polls close Nov 8. You can vote once every 24 hours.

Update: Nov 7 10 am: CA is now over 700 votes ahead of Pharyngula and within 125 votes of Bad Astronomy. It’s a horse race.

2 pm Eastern: after getting to within about 70 votes of Bad Ast in the morning, as others have reported, the voting site has become very very hard to access and Bad Astronomy has lengthened its lead over CA to nearly 200 again. Pharyngula has thrown in the towel and has sent its voters to BA with a malediction against CA. (CA is now over 1100 votes ahead of Pharyngula.) Both blogs are getting a LOT of votes as compared to the general “Best Blog” category – both blogs overtook Michelle Malkin this morning and Arianna Huffington this afternoon.

647 Comments

  1. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 8:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    You got within 76 of Bad Astronomy at one point yesterday then there was a huge surge in voting perhaps you might close the gap even further today – here’s hoping.

  2. Buddenbrook
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 8:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Yeah, Bad Astronomy suddenly got hundred of votes out of nowhere. CA were about to catch BA and then suddenly BA were 600 votes ahead. I think a statistician might conclude that when you get steadily 3000-4000 votes during the course of number of days, you won’t suddenly get 500+ votes in mere minutes (in less than a hour I think) without a contributing extra factor.

    I can think of only two explanations:

    1. Someone posted a link to a very popular liberal/AGW forum/network to defeat those “denialists”. In this case people who have never read BA would be voting BA, which goes against the spirit of the whole thing.

    2. Someone cheated to vote multiple times. Shame on him/her.

  3. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hope I’m not speaking out of place on Steve’s matters, but please nobody do a block vote fiddle that could be discovered and criticised afterwards. It’s so much more satisfying to have an honest race and an honest place.

  4. Bernie
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 9:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve:
    I just knew your were not just a puzzle junkie, but actually one competitive SOB.
    Let’s go for it.

  5. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 9:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The December issue of Discover magazine, which was recently distributed, mentioned Bad Astronomy in their “Blog Watch” section. This mention may have resulted in increased visitation to the site with resultant increase in votes?

  6. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #2

    Pharyngula also pulled ahead sharply then too.

    #3

    I don’t there are many around here that would disagree.

  7. Carl Gullans
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The people running the polls supposedly check for things like this, which is why they state that final results are “preliminary until certified”. Any fraudulent voting like that would have a good chance of being detected, if that’s what it was.

  8. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 9:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #4. Anybody that plays squash (and I still play league and some tournaments) competes. You still buy beer for your opponents afterwards.

  9. Papertiger
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #8 Good point. There is something to be said for pretty space pictures and updates on the Astronauts goings on. – That being said, there is no comparison between you and the work you do and Bad Astronomy. Regardless of an online vote.

  10. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 11:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Out here we put it this way:

    “You buy still beer for your opponents afterwards.”

    May the force be with you Geoff.

  11. Posted Nov 6, 2007 at 11:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t want block voting but I have been emailing a few of Canada’s more popular bloggers pointing out that Steve is one of us. As most of those blogs have linked to Climate Audit on several occasions I am hoping they will mention the race and Steve’s nearing #1.

  12. Bernie
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve & Geoff:
    But the beer tastes better when you win!!

  13. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 6:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    If you promote CA on your blog, you can use my Flash animation, see

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/climateaudit-to-be-2nd-or-better.html

  14. Boris
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 6:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Junk Science has endorsed CA. Congrats or condolences?

    Sorry those ideologues are suppressing your votes, BTW.

  15. Boris
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 6:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Lubos,

    Your animation shows a penguin on the verge of freezing to death. He looks catatonic. This is clearly an alarmist animation.

  16. Sordant G
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 6:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I support comment 3. But I am also very curious: how do they ensure that people only vote once in 24 hours? I voted; then I deleted most of my cookies and reset my internet address; yet when I went back to the site, they still recogized that it was me. So what technology do they use to do that?

  17. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 7:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Boris, are freezing penguins also caused by global warming? ;-) I think it is very correct for JunkScience to endorse CA. JS is surely more ideological than CA but still, I prefer its approach over other approaches.

  18. Boris
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    No, but they will be saved by it obviously. :)

  19. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Everything’s caused by GW, even freezing penguins.

    Any increase of traffic noticed to CA noticed since the Weblog Poll was announced?

  20. Bernie
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 9:18 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Anyone:
    When it says that Polls close November 8th, does anyone have a sense of at what time exactly? Is there an way of monitoring the voting patterns in the last hours of voting? Is there a way of having them audit the voting – and broadcasting which sites were attracting those given to subverting the voting process? I am involved in a survey of “the best…” and we have to be very careful about identifying groups that are trying to stack the deck.

  21. Mark T
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Only 82 behind BA at 8:32 MST.

    Mark

  22. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 9:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The Pharyngula vote seems to have collapsed.

  23. Gaudenz Mischol
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Wow, only 50 behind and closing!

  24. andre
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    yes and for some reason CA is leaping forward. BA 5972, CA 5922

  25. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Yep, about a 1000 less than here.

    BA only has 50 more votes than CA right now.

  26. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I suggest we plug the daily vote totals into some mannian sausage machine and see if
    we get a hockey stick? UC?

  27. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m afraid to ask what that mannian sausage machine makes, but I think it has something to do with that mohel you keep talking about.

  28. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

    What do you have to do to get the stupid browsers to show updated counts? Even when I shut down my browsers, either IE or Netscape or both and then restart it won’t update. It only seems to do it when it allows me to vote again and then sticks with that value no matter what.

  29. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Well Foxfire on my wife’s computer let me vote again and CA was down 61 at the time.

  30. welikerocks
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re: 24
    I posted the links and the whole story this morning on a blog that I belong to that usually has 1,000 of people logged in at one time (its nominated also in another category) and who’s members are at times very interested in this Global Warming issue. Don’t know if that’s the reason, but I hope it helps!

    Dave #28, I have a Mac, and IE and Netscape were not working for me anymore at all. Had to upgrade to Firefox, and that seemed to fix all my internet problems.

  31. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear David, for updating of the web page, have you tried shift/reload, ctrl/reload, and ctrl/r?

  32. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    David, it could also be a proxy in your neighborhood. In that case, you must modify the URL to update it, for example open

    http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog-1.php?motl=update1

    Or change the irrelevant characters after the question mark. ;-)

  33. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, I think I know why pharyngula is falling off. PZ Meyers wrote:

    You can vote today, and you can vote tomorrow, and then the polls close…so get out there and vote for Bad Astronomy for best science blog. The forces of stupidity have been motivated and are pushing a denialist blog up in the rankings, and it would be good to consolidate our votes and make sure a decent blog wins. Tim Lambert agrees, and also informs us that Steve Milloy has endorsed the Climate Audit blog—any doubt that it was an undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery has now ended.

    My, I am surprised, Steve Milloy likes here more than he likes over there? Shocking! And, well, if Tim Lambert agrees, so it must be a good idea.

  34. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    lol, the bit about SM endorsing CA is a link, and the link goes to… Back to his blog!

    So, Steve, how does it feel now to have your blog be an “undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery ?

    Whatever the hello that means.

  35. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    RE27. Hehe. Thas a good one.

    In the next 3 hours you may see the CA total go through the roof
    from legit votes. 20 million listners can’t be wrong. Dropping a supporting mail
    there could be quite interesting.

  36. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “Undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery”? I thought the category was supposed to be science blogs. I can see what puts a bee in their bonnets.

  37. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The pharyngula vote has collapsed because PZ has asked his voters to vote for BA to prevent “conservative junk science” sites from winning.

    JunkScience threw their weight behind ClimateAudit. PZ unobjectively and uncritically adds, regarding ClimateAudit:

    any doubt that it was an undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery has now ended.

    See? Who needs to worry about data and evidence when you can determine the correctness of science by which political group attempts to exploit it. It’s a whole new paradigm.

  38. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Oops #38 cross posted with Sams comments… you beat me to it, Sam.

  39. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    NP spence happens all the time to me, xpostin’

    I thought it was funny his SM endorsement links back to his own blog rather than over here (which makes sense but probably not much difference)

    ne wayz

  40. MarkW
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The few times Steve has allowed his personal politics to slip through, it’s quite obvious that the term “right wing” would never be applied by anyone whot thinks for a living.

    Just goes to show you how knee jerk many liberals are getting these days.

  41. henry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Bernie asked:

    Anyone:

    When it says that Polls close November 8th, does anyone have a sense of at what time exactly?

    According to the vote main page:

    Polls close Thursday November 8, 2007 at 10:00 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), which is 5:00 p.m. (EST) and 2:00 p.m. (PST). Finalists can get hosted finalist badges here.

  42. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Vox Populi!

    I guess the grapes are sour for PZ Meyers…

  43. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 40. Not yet, we will see

    Drop him a line.

    I bet Anthony could call Hannity as well. That would be a hoot

  44. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Boris, if they’re the listeners I’m thinking of, BA will be lucky to have a visible bar by the time they’re done (if the server survives it, anyway).

  45. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re 46.

    Consensus..

    What do you call a guy with no arms and no legs who says uninteresting things?

  46. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I think this long ago moved out of the realm of blog reader popularity of the blog and into an issue of voting against somebody else more so than voting for somebody.

    It’s a battle of ideology!!! Vanquish the other wing!!! Slay the foe!!!

    Oh, brother.

  47. Liz
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    9:15 am pst Looks like the server didn’t like whatever happened, can’t get in to vote this morning.

  48. MattN
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m having alot of trouble getting on to vote. The traffic must be immense….

  49. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Moondancer

    You really ought to think about phrases like “fake science blog” before you post. I think you mean “fake-science blog” meaning that we discuss favorably things which aren’t “real” science rather than that we pretend to be about science (of whatever sort) but aren’t. Given the huge number of links on this blog to science papers of all sorts, including a great many we don’t agree with but which I assume you would, the claim that we’re only pretending to be about science falls rather flat.

    But you’re welcome to drop by anytime and trying to discuss what you think is real science. But I might point out that trolls here generally don’t last long because they don’t get the return ad homs they crave but requests to clarify their claimed science points. And the owner, Steve McIntyre is more polite than the Homies for the most part. For instance I had to remove a return smack from the first line of this post once I realized it wasn’t too smart to use what I was attacking. Use-mention dicotomy and all that.

  50. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    48, looks like he dunnit. People at a blog like this think that a few thousand is traffic. You find out what traffic really is when somebody like Drudge or Limbaugh turns the firehose on.

  51. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Larry, the second Gentleman you mentioned might be already be being drafted. ;-)

  52. Liz
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    9:27 am PST Finally got in. Then I refreshed, and CA lost a vote. How the heck can that happen?

  53. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #54

    Liz, that happened to me once as well. I think using refresh must try to recast the vote or something, causing the filters to pick it up and bounce it. Best click on the original link to get back to it.

    Frustrating, but it should be equally likely to happen to all, so shouldn’t affect the result.

  54. Doug
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I didn’t much care until they started calling us quacks and right-wing mouthpieces, or worse yet, accusations of using complex jibberish to sound like we know what we are talking about. I thought with my three college degrees and daily reading I knew science when I saw it. Science is found here. There may be some right- wing nut-job noise, but it gets drowned out in the equations.

    Thanks Steve!

  55. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The site seems down (and/or just really very slow off and on) yes….

    If you think about it logically, I think “the listeners” would be more along the lines of “for” JS, but definately “against” P very much. BA? It’s unclear to me why they’d be one way or the other BA vs CA, , neither there nor here is very political, I don’t think.

    A pity this might (has?) become a contest of who can get radio listeners. (PS not everyone that listens is just “on one side”, nor all to the extremes; a lot of people pay attention to it)

  56. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Larry over at The Reference Frame sez:

    BTW, it’s been confirmed that pharyngula has conceded and instructed their minions to vote early and often for BA. That explains why their numbers aren’t rising.

    And yes, it’s for political reasons.
    Larry R. | 11.07.07 – 5:59 pm | #

    ——————————————————————————–

    Interesting. The WA site is impossible to get onto, and rumor has it that this has made it onto talk radio. If so, this could be a slaughter.

    I don’t think Steve wanted this to get political like this, but if you look at pharyngula and BA, they started it, and said that people should vote for BA as a vote against “denialism”. So if they get clobbered, I’m not going to feel bad about it.
    Larry R. | 11.07.07 – 6:44 pm | #

    ——————————————————————————–

  57. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Ain’t unintended consequences interesting?

    Oh well.

  58. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 58. This is fun

  59. MattN
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I didn’t much care until they started calling us quacks and right-wing mouthpieces, or worse yet, accusations of using complex jibberish to sound like we know what we are talking about. I thought with my three college degrees and daily reading I knew science when I saw it. Science is found here. There may be some right- wing nut-job noise, but it gets drowned out in the equations.

    Agreed. I have 1.5 Engineering degrees and I have trouble keeping up. There is way, way way more actual science and analysis here than anywhere I’ve ever seen. Actually, there may be so much science that it’s keeping away the very people who need to see it. Some “liberal arts” posters on another forum I frequent that have given up on trying to keep up here. SO they just close their eyes and keep typing the same AGW-gibberish they’ve been typing for a decade.

  60. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I see what you mean, it’s very slow connecting to them and then all it gives me is a shot of the last results I’d had, not even the main index. Anyway, while this site isn’t really political, just about every other skeptic site is, so what can you do? While I suppose the weblog awards people could try punishing CA, the fact is that most of Rush’s listeners are also online and read plenty of blogs. It’s just that they’d never heard of the weblog awards as I hadn’t until Steve mentioned it. So the votes which may come to CA because of it are legitimate according to the contest rules and should stand. Of course, now that it’s out in the open as a political contest, who knows how many votes either side might pick up?

  61. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hmm. The gap is holding, but the numbers are rising rapidly. I have a hunch that word has gone out on both the left and right blogospheres. “Horse race” is putting it mildly.

    This must be fascinating to a statistician.

  62. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Anyway, while this site isn’t really political, just about every other skeptic site is, so what can you do?

    This is part of the problem, my thoughts were “hey these sites must have scientists at them, if it is possible to explain to them there is more to this site than the average sceptic site, they might take an interest”

    More fool me :)

    It is easier for them to simply lump CA in with other sceptic sites that focus more on the politics. Of course, this line of reasoning works something like this:

    Premise. Political right-wing blogs use bad science to cast doubt about the work of climate scientists

    Premise. ClimateAudit casts doubt about the work of climate scientists

    Conclusion. Therefore, ClimateAudit is a political right-wing blog

    Of course, PZ is helpfully illustrating the anti science reasoning method Affirming the Consequent, so that when his commenters see it on other anti science sites, they will recognise it :)

  63. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Opps. I think I broke it.

  64. cbone
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: 54,55

    No fears your votes are safe. From the web awards page (just below the vote tallies):

    Please note that to reduce the load on our server when you cast your vote the counters are incremented on your display and the vote is recorded in the database. If you refresh your browser it will appear as if your vote has disappeared. That is not the case, it’s simply a caching issue. Your vote is safely recorded and everyone else sees your vote. If you close your browser completely the next time you load the poll the totals displayed will include your vote.

  65. welikerocks
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    But it isn’t just political blogs that care about this topic. take for instance I have email pals from the Michael Crichton site-and we came together as fans of books, then fans of the author,-then Crichton’s speeches,the GW thing yes- State of Fear, but he has other books that deal with science and public policy-fans from biology sectors, medical sectors, genetics etc etc. They may know this site, Crichten spoke about Steve’s work, and they belong to other blogs who may know this site.

    In real life, we vote either party sometimes, so do friends, it depends on what we are voting for, but we ALL want true science on this issue and don’t think Al Gore and 60 Mins are the All Knowing Ones. Plus my husband being an earth scientist…don’t forget there are huge numbers of working scientists who read this site who may have time to click a vote, but not time comment ever.

    American Idol runs quite smoothly it seems with this sort of set up..vote as many times as you like for your favorite Idol.

  66. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    64, the problem is, if you take a disinterested evidence-based approach, you get branded a “skeptic”, and then a “denier”. The only thing worse than that is for a believer site (*cough, realclimate, cough*) to pretend to be an objective science site.

    Truth be known, this is as close to an objective site as they get.

  67. welikerocks
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    PIMF…time to vote, but not time to comment…

  68. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It doesn’t help that some bright boy decided to do this in flash. Flash is powerful, but efficiency isn’t one of it’s strengths.

  69. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Larry #63, concerning your conscience, I assure you that Bad Astronomy has much broader publicity than Climate Audit. Count e.g. these hits for comparison:

    http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=vote-for+climateaudit
    http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=vote-for+bad-astronomy

    20 for CA vs 120 for BA or so. Well, this is how the hierarchy works. At this influence scale, the alarmist/liberal activists clearly enjoy a majority. Well, it might just happen that if this pressure exceeds a certain critical point, the horse race arena may move to talk radios where the results could be different. ;-)

  70. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 70. idjits

  71. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #66, good catch, thanks!

  72. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The voting site appears to be down. Is anyone else having trouble reaching it?

  73. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 74. see #36. See #65. see #70.

  74. Andy
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I hope the people voting for CA from hearing about it on talk radio take the time to actually peruse the site. Especially since Steve Mc put the recap of the Wegman/North hockey refereeing up just in time.

    My hat’s off to the regulars, though. CA was doing great even before JunkScience and talk radio threw in support.

  75. MarkW
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Like the majority of alarmist sights aren’t political as well?

  76. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s not down, but you may have to retry 4 or 5 times.

    What I don’t understand is why I have to close firefox and reopen it to get a refresh. If I just refresh, I get a big gray blank background. Some flash quick, maybe.

  77. Larry Huldén
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think the voting site has been down for about one hour now!

  78. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    77, Steve specifically avoids politics. Show me another climate blog, on either side of the issue, that does that.

    Internal organizational politics of The Team notwithstanding.

  79. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 78.

    Maybe somebody did a pre-emptive strike to take down the site before CA could catch up.
    I have to check the Talk radio transcript to see if he actually mentioned it.

    The phenomena you describe makes no sense to me. UNless somebody is mucking about the site.

  80. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #71

    I took a quick look at your search. I did wonder if some of the bad astronomy links dated back to last year when they were also in the running, but I noticed that of the 20 found with the climateaudit search, several of them were actually suggesting not to vote CA…

    Google search estimates the number of hits, and overestimates with BA, there are around 38 links, and some of them are from last year – although they are consistently supportive, he does not have the same political smear campaign against him that has been orchestrated against CA.

  81. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    81, the actual numbers don’t seem to be clicking up that fast. It could be a DDOS designed to maintain BA’s lead, but it could just as easily be flash requiring a jillion megabytes just to connect. Whatever the cause of the choke, the numbers don’t seem to be displaying a talk radio signal.

    If you try some of the non-science links, they seem to be a little faster, so it appears that the science page is being hit in particular. However, the entire site is slow.

  82. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Can’t get through to the site from here in NZ

  83. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think there is a simple reason for the slowness at Web Awards, and it has nothing to do with talk radio, DDOS, or anything else.

    There are about 40-50 categories (can’t count cuz I can’t see them now) and many are waging similar voting death matches I’m sure. Blogging has increased immensely in popularity in the last year, and I’m betting WA simply didn’t plan enough horsepower for the multiple horse races that are in progress.

  84. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It could be a DDOS designed to maintain BA’s lead

    Larry, I don’t think anyone is going to go to those sorts of lengths. Remember there are a lot of contests taking place on that server – not just the science one – if any of those contests got a link from a high readership site, I suspect all would suffer. As you point out, more likely a problem with the way the software is set up.

    It has been interesting following this little episode in CAs life, but a new MATLAB contest has just started up, so I’m off to spend my time on an entirely different unproductive and time consuming venture :) Apparently we’re gene splicing this time around. Fun for geeks!

  85. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    85, or they didn’t use flash last year, and handled this level of traffic just fine.

  86. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    86, I agree that it’s not one of the more likely explanations, but I’ve seen it happen.

  87. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Flash often hoses things up…

    As far as all that goes, if it’s true the blogosphere is dominated by one side, and it’s pretty much a given that talk radio is dominated by the other (at least host-wise), maybe that does make it fair, if BA has 3 times the google hits.

    Anyone know the demographics of blog readers in any kind of detail? Numbers of readers and their particular leanings? Or for that matter any of the radio outlets. (For example, Neal Boortz is a Libertarian, but he sides more with the Conservatives. However, if you listen to his show, and read his hate mail, what he is, and what the listeners are, are often two different things. Although that could just be the call screening style and the type of pepple that would email rather than being indicative of the entire listenership; who knows.)

    Anyway, have we ascertained that this isn’t just a lot of web traffic from bloggers and that it’s not any other kind of media outlet driving the traffic?

    But that is correct, Limbaugh has a lot of bloggers listening (or listeners blogging) and by and large they are fairly well educated (and I’m sure Boris would say none of it stuck, lol) so…. Of course, there’s also a lot of “spies” that listen for various reasons. :) So who knows what the audience is like.

    YMMV.

  88. STAFFAN LINDSTROEM
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 1:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #15 Boris …Get Carter! Both the original movie(1971) with Michael
    Caine and: Bob Carter: “Climate Change. Is CO2 the cause?” Ending
    Part 1: 3 fat polar bears are barbecuing a chicken…NTS they
    don’t look catatonic at all, perhaps they drink gin and tonic
    L…O…L…Met prof Carter in Stockholm briefly last year…
    Compared to him Al Gore is still “the Bore” And I recommend
    Tubesucker to download the clips and Flashplayer to play them
    as they freeze when streamed..!! Oops! Prof Carter is on YouTube
    as mentioned earlier on another thread. If Bob is right we’ll
    also freeze in the next 10-30 years…
    As admitted on another WAF threads on CA voting for CA has
    been a little “fraudulent”…who could have guessed??

  89. Brent Brouwer
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think I am a better man for reading your work,Steve. When I read some say it was just all too complicated(“To many notes Mozart”),I could’t help thinking,Ah…you could just start reading the whole epistle,left side,start at the top. And then you just go and start a newby thread. Thanks from all who get a headache from numbers. Thanks also that I have not the foggiest notion of what your politics might be.

  90. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Based upon reading the other replies since, I’d think my guess was right. It does appear to be just lots of regular traffic. If a lot of folks without Flash come in, that’ll be a load in and of itself.

    And many servers (and/or server software, say Apache) aren’t tuned (or tweaked) very well.

    Has anyone emailed them?

    Oh, and if this is normal traffic, what happens if this gets out on other forms of media? Ouch!

    Now that I think about it, we keep it fairly apolitical here, but this is a pretty political subjecty, so it’s obvious there’s two camps with battle lines drawn, regardless of the focus or behavior of the site itself. (Much like radio hosts for example as I mentioned vs the audience) So it couldn’t help but spill over, it pretty much started that way.

  91. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’d love to see Steve win and have been pounding on whatever big blog doors I have a in with. That said, the main upside to these sorts of contests is the long term increase in awareness and traffic.

    Getting the “hard science”, “science is by nature skeptical” message out is vital. This contest helps.

  92. John A
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I can’t even get to the awardswebsite. It seems to be crushed by the traffic.

    It’s quite amusing to have it happen to someone else for a change.

  93. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 1:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 83.

    A rush of ditto heads would have clobbered it. It seemed to die a slow death.
    Flakey also on it’s calculation of 24 hour period. WAASUP with that?

  94. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 1:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m just not seeing evidence of huge traffic in the numbers. The site is weak.

  95. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Latest results: BA 6485, CA 6238. The gap is widening. No dittoheads evident.

  96. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    BA 6500
    CA 6245

  97. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 2:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s just hosed up. In the past 20 minutes, BA went from 6485 to 6506 (d = 21), and CA went from 6238 to 6255 (d = 17). This is like watching a horse race in molasses.

  98. Bernie
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 2:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Look out for the HS tomorrow afternoon!!

  99. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve never read this site before, but followed a link from Pharyngula (in general I’m a bit skeptical of what Myers labels as “right-wing” or “denialist” so I had to stop by and check it out). To state the obvious, this site is a great example of what should happen with science – it should be actively questioned and viewed with a critical eye (how else do we expect our understanding of observations to improve?).
    So, in protest of Myers and his blatant distaste for anyone whose views differ in the slightest from his own, I have cast my vote for this blog, and will try and remember to throw a few more votes your way before the competition is up.
    Nice site.

  100. Stephen Richards
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I can’t get in from France. I’ve been trying all night

  101. MarkR
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 2:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I am a bit suspicious about the BA number. It has stayed in front by a steady amount. I think someone is pumping their numbers, but not so much as to make it look overly suspicious.

  102. D. Patterson
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Just like IRL, can’t get into the polling place to vote.

  103. Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve been able to reach it and vote using IE, but not Firefox (today). Maybe it’s coincidence.

  104. John A
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Can I recommend this comment on Pharyngula?

  105. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    BA: 6581 – 6506 = 75
    CA: 6315 – 6255 = 60

    Or 125%. The last differences were 21 and 17, or 123%

    Mark, that ratio seems awfully consistent. I smell monkey business. Real returns don’t work like this.

  106. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Mark R:

    No good comes from that sort of assumption. Yes, web polls can potentially be subverted, and yes, it could just as easily happen in favour of CA as in favour of BAB. It’s best to leave this issue at the roadside. Suspicions, unless they can be proven, are useless.

  107. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Larry:

    With consistant voting comes consistant numbers. Do like Steve and don’t assume there’s a signal in every bit of data just to prove your views.

  108. Mike B
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #63

    This must be fascinating to a statistician.

    Actually, it is about as boring as it gets for a statistician. Internet polls give you self-selection
    bias, ballot box stuffing (‘bots and all that java stuff I’ll never understand), and websites crashing.

    Not a representative sample to be found anywhere.

  109. Bernie
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Lily:
    Welcome. You are in for a rare treat and if, like many of us, you have only a basic knowledge of statistics or it is long forgotten, you will likely double or triple that knowledge in a matter of weeks. The only down-side is that it is addictive and other things will be ignored while you analyze data, learn R, scrape data, create and interpret endless graphs, learn the basics of dendrochronology, discover what makes bristlecone pines fascinating, master the elements of the FOI Act, the politics of government funded research institutions and learn how best to site your own weather station!! You will also see some first rate minds in action not to mention one of the most prolific researchers around, our own blogmaster Steve.

  110. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    109, I could be persuaded either way, but the fact that these science blogs have taken over and passed Malkin and Hufpo in the best blog category strongly suggests that there’s more going on here than just the random effects of people doing what they otherwise would have done.

    So it’s probably nothing, but I’ll keep my eye on the ratio anyway, tyvm.

  111. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    A sugggestion for those that can’t get in to vote due to traffic/site issues.

    Wait for off-peak in the USA, that would be after 5PM EST and getting progressively better through the evening. After midnight EST would probably get much less traffic.

    A lot of people vote from work. Then again from home right after dinner, so the later you try to access the more likely you will get through.

  112. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    110, exactly. And the fun for the statistician is to try to infer those things from the patterns.

  113. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    113, that’s correct. The whole internet seems to take a siesta about 5 PST/8 EST. Since we’re just about 24 hours from closing, there’s no downside to waiting (i.e., at this point, you only get one more).

  114. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Cement: Drying.
    Boris: writing.

  115. Mike Rankin
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    After at least six attempts, I managed to vote again at 3:55 PM CST.

    Status:

    BA 6,631
    CA 6,349

    Keep trying.

  116. Steve Moore
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE #106:

    I read the whole string, and got the impression there are a lot of folks over there who heavily invest in arguments from authority:
    “My authority is more authorative than your authority! So there!”

    It only takes one “authority” to skew policy if that one has the ear(s) of power. Refer Lysenko.

  117. Larry Grimm
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 4:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just got into the site. It took me four tries today. I don’t know if it matters but I used the link from Steve’s post a couple of days ago. I had no luck with the link embedded in today’s post.

  118. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 119.

    The embedded link was a non starter for me ALL DAY TODAY. and even though I havent voted
    in two days (Honest) I still get the boot from them.

  119. Miguel
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From Spain, you got my votes all the days.
    Either CA win or loses you are probing everyday that you are a modern Don Quichotte. Adelante amigo.

  120. woodentop
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #119 that worked for me too, strangely… though the site loaded slower than a slow thing moving very slowly.

  121. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 4:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    OT, but we live in strange times, watch out for this hoax:

    Benthic Bacteria Emit Noxious Gases (Hoax Warning)
    Iain Murray
    November 7, 2007
    There’s a hoax going round, with a very convincing “study” that claims not only to find a link between “benthic bacteria” and temperature increases, but also has the authors say that they were intimidated into not publishing their findings. You can see this clever piece of inventiveness here:

    http://www.geoclimaticstudies.info/benthic_bacteria.htm

    The author(s) have even made up past contents for the fake journal. There is no Department of Climatology at the University of Arizona, nor is there a Daniel Klein or Mandeep Gupta in the U of A directory. Neither is there an Institute of Geoclimatic Studies.

    A quick whois lookup indicates that the site is registered to one David Thorpe of Powys, Wales, in the UK. There is a David Thorpe who claims to be a “prize-winning novelist and environmental journalist” there and who runs the company to whom the site is registered. He blogs as The Low Carbon Kid.

    Congratulations to Mr Thorpe on his eye for detail and the work that must have gone in to producing such a convincing-looking study at first sight. I’m sure he’ll fool lots of people who will find the “findings” extremely attractive, but globalwarming.org is not one of them. We are skeptics, after all…

  122. Bernie
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There have been no additional votes registered in the last 45 minutes, hopefully there checking to see who has been stuffing the ballot box.

  123. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 4:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    123, OMG:

    Where Q is raw mass, u is area, c is osmotic conductivity, Ψ is the vertical (neo-Falkian) benthic discontinuity, X is concretised diachronic invariance (P-series), F is trans-dimensional flow structure and jy is the non-rectilineal harmonic regressivity of the constant Δ.

    He forgot the snogulator rimiflux.

  124. MattN
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    6:20pm, almost 300 back now….

  125. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I see that Pharyngula is calling me a “undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery”.

    I take considerable pride in not being a “mouthpiece” for anyone. The views that I express are my own. I cannot imagine what basis, if any, he has for purporting to discern my political views or what evidence he has for calling them “right-wing”. I challenge him or anyone else to locate any quotes from me that support such allegations.

    It’s fine for PZ Myers to support his friend over at Bad Astronomy, but it’s inappropriate for him to disseminate hate allegations.

  126. MarkR
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The difference between the CA and BA vote has settled to being very close to 270 votes all the time.

  127. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The one I captured has a gap of 277, but the percentages of BA and CA are both going up. There’s a urination competition going on.

  128. Leonidas Lakedaimonian
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    And now the poll list is empty, as if their database had crashed.

  129. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It looks like they tweaked something. It comes up fast now, but the flash thingy doesn’t have any live data. This would suggest that the flash app was the problem.

  130. chris
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I voted once several days ago. Every time I went back to the site, including just now, it said I couldn’t vote as I had last voted less than 24 hours ago. Should I get paranoid at rigging? Is Diebold involved?

  131. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The just fixed it, whatever it was.

  132. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    BA’s taking off like a bat out of hell, CA’s doing pretty good too, but slowly falling behind.

  133. Paul Penrose
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I too was not able to get in to vote using the link at the top of this page, but when I used the link in the previous thread on this subject, I was able to get right in. I don’t know why they work differently; at a quick glance the links look identical.

  134. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    All links seem to work now; I think they had to reboot one of their servers or something.

  135. Lance in AZ
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I have three active computers in the house, and I’m voting with all of them every 24 hours. No problems getting into the site from Arizona.

  136. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Gap = 321 and rising…

  137. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just got in and BA is 318 ahead. (1.3% of the total votes)

    I don’t know about BA, it looks calm, but I didn’t poke around much on it. Those people at Pharyngula are creepy annoying. Reminds me a lot of the worst examples at many of the blogs, BBSs and message boards I’ve been too. Some of those guys are like some that start posting here before reading anything, attributing all sorts of insane illogical motivations to everyone, and can’t stop the {inserte string of logical fallacies here}. And really, at least BA is an actual science blog and not some advocacy site. I don’t think they put a lot of those listed into the correct category.

  138. David Ermer
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve,

    I’ve voted from every computer I own (I have multiple Linux boxes that I run optimization simulations on), but the gap isn’t closing.

    Good luck, this site deserves to win. It is one of the few places I been that actually does real old school science.

  139. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    336 and climbing.

  140. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 6:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 102. Surrender then.

  141. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 6:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    339. Is the tide turning?

  142. Dan White
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 6:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    After reading the comments on the other “science” weblogs regarding CA being political and junk science, I was at first astounded (gobsmacked, some might say) at the hubris on display.

    The big picture is that CA wasn’t even on the map last year, and is now in contention of winning the award (such as it is) against a “team” of opponents. I think next year’s results will be very telling. There’s a saying that goes something like, “A lie makes its way half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on.” I think this poll illustrates how the truth is beginning to catch up to the lie.

    Great job Steve Mc!

  143. brian
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 6:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    this is silly…i look forward to this being over…the fact that CA and all the commenters here are so into this contest is really turning me off to CA…i’ll come back when it’s over. good luck.

  144. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 6:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s wee hours in Europe, late evening in eastern North America, early evening in western North America, and day in east Asia and Australia. This means the Euros get one more crack at it, as do the eastern North Americans. Western North Americans, not so much. It’s hard to say how it’s going to play out, but I think the gap will narrow, but not enough.

  145. Larry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 6:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    145, what else do you expect to be discussed on this thread? If you don’t like it here…

  146. Bernie
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 7:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #145
    Brian

    You are right, this is silly on a huge number of levels. On the other hand, when you experience the invective and disdain from those at other sites, it always feels good to give them a poke back – childish perhaps, but not malicious. It is also true that skeptics and contrarians (not cynics!), like many here, just love a good race, especially where the underdog looks like it is giving the favorites a run for their money.

  147. Carl Saffon
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 8:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I see that Pharyngula is calling me a “undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery”.

    so you don’t deserve to be a mouthpiece for right-wing hackery? Or perhaps the right-wing doesn’t deserve such an elegant mouthpiece as yourself? Whatever it means, I’m fairly certain that the poster didn’t mean it.

  148. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There’s nothing silly about this, it’s what the thread is about.

  149. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Outrageous comments –

    I can’t get in from France. I’ve been trying all night

    Yes, the French are lousy lovers.

    What is consensus?

    A poll with the results rigged.

    I think they had to reboot one of their servers or something.

    Good hired hands are hard to find

    idjits

    miniature idiots?

    I smell monkey business.

    I work at science for a living

    With consistant voting comes consistant numbers

    With consistent practice comes consistent spelling.

    Simply to lighten the day as the tension rises. Geoff.

  150. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 8:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 151. A scholar and a comic. Only in australia.

  151. Mark T
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Speak for yourself Bernie, I’ve grown quite cynical over the years. ;) Cynicism and engineering seem to be happy bedfellows from my experience.

    Mark

  152. Jeff C.
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Interesting, the Blog readability test http://www.criticsrant.com/bb/reading_level.aspx ranked the education level required to read the competitors as follows:

    Climate Audit – college, undergrad
    Pharyngula – High School
    Junk Sciencs – High School
    Bad Astronomy – unable to rank (that can’t be good)

    Some others
    Real Climate – High School
    Watts Up With That – High School
    Dr. Pielke Sr’s old Site – College, post graduate

  153. Bill Derryberry
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Voting site seems go be locked up again.
    I’ve been trying for about 90 minutes.

    Bill

  154. Mark T
    Posted Nov 7, 2007 at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Interesting, Jeff…

    Mark

  155. Buddenbrook
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CA within 30 votes of BA now.

    The first time this happened BA got a sudden avalance of ~600 extra votes.

    The second time this happened BA got a sudden avalanche of ~400 extra votes.

    Both contrary to the steady gains in votes, statistical irregulaties.

    Will it happen for the third time?

  156. Georg Dimitrov
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:22 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Just saw CA ahead !

  157. Hans Erren
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CA leads 8602/8586!

  158. Tomas S
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CA still in first place right now.

  159. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #154, Interesting site Jeff! I couldn’t resist trying a few others:

    Prometheus (RPJrs old site) – College, Undergrad
    Stoat (William Connelly) – Junior High School
    James’ Empty Blog (James Annan) – College, Postgrad
    Reference Frame (Lubos Motl) – College, Postgrad
    Landshape (David Stockwell) – could not find URL??? I found it okay! might have timed out

    Ultimately, it is difficult to interpret what this means. Does college, postgrad mean simple ideas are being explained in an unnecessarily verbose manner, or could junior high school mean complex ideas are being explained in a manner accessible to anyone? Of course, the topics Steve tends to discuss are likely to be beyond most high schoolers (one or two notable exceptions to that rule of course!), so it may be simply impossible to make this blog more accessible.

    Generally I find James Annan’s viewpoint as being of high quality and relatively objective compared to most climate science pro-AGW type sites, although he has a weakness for the silly climate betting thing. The Reference Frame is, of course, a very high quality site too (even if my browser doesn’t seem to like it so much). So perhaps the readability index is a useful measure.

  160. someone
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The CA vote has been steadily rising at a rate of about one a second for a considerable time. A very consistent, and i’m emabarassed to say suspicious, state of affairs. I don’t think anyone (on either side) should come out of this feeling good.

  161. MarkW
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The polls been pretty fast this morning. Steve’s 192 votes back.

  162. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

    154 Jeff C. Interesting indeed. I ran a couple of CA’s typical detractor sites:

    bigcitylib.blogspot.com – Junior High School

    rabett.blogspot.com – College, Undergrad

    scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ – High School

    As for my own ranking of WattsUpWithThat, “high school” I’m very pleased. Because my strategy is the same as when I did weather and science on TV, i.e. make the subject matter understandable for the broadest number of viewers.

  163. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, CA was only ahead by 20 votes but it suddenly got an avalanche and is ahead by 80 votes. Right after I posted about it again. ;-) It’s not yet the winner, remember.

  164. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Someone said:

    The CA vote has been steadily rising at a rate of about one a second for a considerable time. A very consistent, and i’m emabarassed to say suspicious, state of affairs. I don’t think anyone (on either side) should come out of this feeling good.

    I’m sure James Hansen would reply that it doesn’t matter if the voting is rigged or otherwise usufruct up, because it was equally as messed up last year. So the data may be suspect, but it can be adjusted for accuracy. Hence the current results are completely valid.

  165. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:36 AM | Permalink | Reply

    163 MarkW

    CA’s lead is gaining, now about 80 votes ahead. You have to close your browser then open it to the web awards vote page again to see updated numbers. They have some cache issue.

  166. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The CA vote has been steadily rising at a rate of about one a second for a considerable time. A very consistent, and i’m emabarassed to say suspicious, state of affairs. I don’t think anyone (on either side) should come out of this feeling good.

    Indeed. it’s a seriously compromised vote.

  167. fFreddy
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #166, Chris Christner

    Hence the current results are completely valid.

    But only after Hansen has adjusted them …

  168. Buddenbrook
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    To be fair, it looks quite likely now, that, in all probability, someone has cheated on behalf of CA too.

    Guess you can’t avoid these things with polls like this. There will be always someone. One person is enough.

    But still, outside of these surges of votes, CA have been the most popular.

  169. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re170 their site meter is public, anybody see any familiar IP’s or URL’s?

    http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s18awards&r=8

  170. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I remailed all of my lists about an hour ago. Good luck Steve!

  171. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The site says that voting will close the 8 of november, great, but what time? As far as I’m concerned they might stop it right now, ‘the poll is settled’ to paraphrase a well known sage.

  172. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

    There may be other things at work. Newsbusters.org has placed an endorsement for CA on their main page and it is wakeup time on the east coast.

    As a result of that and other endorsments, there may be a blog and website push going on by supporters:

    GOOGLE
    Results 1 – 10 of about 1,030,000 for “vote for climate audit”.
    Results 1 – 10 of about 30,700 for “vote for climateaudit”.

  173. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

    nasa.gov:

  174. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #170

    To be fair, it looks quite likely now, that, in all probability, someone has cheated on behalf of CA too.

    Why? Isn’t the American East coast waking up about now and firing up their computers (for breakfast) about now and wouldn’t you expect a surge about now?

  175. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The polls close at 5 pm Eastern Time.

    Last year both Bad Astronomy and Pharyngula got over 9000 votes, so the total vote volume is not necessarily out of line. There have been a couple of vote surges for Bad Astronomy which people here have noticed – I noticed one on Nov 5 when CA got close and then swoosh, Bad Astronomy was 300 votes ahead. If you have a rooting interest, such things seem suspicious.

    On the other hand, you can also assume that a lot of voters vote when they turn on their computers in the North American morning (like me). So you’re going to get a voting pulse in the North American morning and one presumes that the votes will be a lot faster than during the North American night.

    It’s hard to compare to previous days because the voting rate has surged as the contest has gone on. Also yesterday the Awards site was essentially unavailable much of the day, so it’s hard to tell what would have happened yesterday. There were some website pushes for CA that might not have been reflected in yesterdday’s voting since I presume that a lot of potential voters didn’t vote yesterday because of lack of access and so their ballots were fresh this a.m.

    As Anthony observes, the Award access is online here and there are a LOT of different addresses linking to the awards.

  176. GrG
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #176
    So everyone on the East Coast has exactly the same opinion on climate matters? Sure.

  177. MarkR
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #168 Peter Hearnden. You really are very funny. Not a peep till CA is in front, then “this poll is seriously compromised”.

  178. John A
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    13:30 GMT

    CA: 9232
    BA: 8751
    Pharyngula: 5353
    JS: 3532

    What caused the sudden rush for CA? Do we have a Hockeystick-shaped voting profile?

  179. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Mark, just my opinion based on the sudden change to the voting pattern that’s been pretty consistent for several days. Note: my comment refers to the vote, whoever wins. OK?

  180. John A
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I think I’ve found a flaw in my plan for blog domination.

  181. Iain
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I suspect that the Pharyngula votes (their votes have dropped off considerably) has switched to CA. And we have the European votes accumulating, different time zones, different patterns.

  182. MarkR
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #180 John A. My theory wot is mine, is that BA has been artificially pumped up, till today, and somehow the plug has been pulled.

  183. GrG
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    What’s funny is how much the CA crowd has b!tched & moaned about how “the other side cheated!”, yet now when CA gets over 500 votes in 30 minutes — “Oh, people must be turning on their computers, hrmph.” Yeah….

    What’s also funny is that all those thousands of East Coasters momentarily slowed down their voting soon after the last few messages that mentioned this new surge.

    What happened to being rational and objective when observing data? Isn’t this supposed to be a science site?

  184. MrPete
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I too have noticed that the polls go up in “clumps”. Watching for the last few days, I suspect it is partially tied to the time of day that each group of readers first became aware of the contest. Every 24 hours or so after that, the blog will receive a burst of votes.

    On that basis, don’t be too surprised if CA falls behind again later today: BA has had a daily surge, and I’m sure part of it is simply the day’s “catch” of repeat votes. Sorry, I didn’t know what time the vote would end and paid no attention to exactly when the surge hit.

  185. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s well past midnight here in Melbourne 1345 GMT and CA is ahead. Under nine hours to go before the finish line. What is more amazing, I could find only one other blog that had more votes in any category (Best Blog Overall Category) and even there CA would come second. But I did not search every one.

    Hope it’s not too early, but congratulations, Steve, whether it’s first or second. This exercise has deep ramifications for not just your skill, but for the proper conduct of blogs and the wellspring of aspiring inquirers that is there to be tapped. More power to you. Geoff.

  186. Bernie
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

    JohnA:
    At least you could have give me (#100) credit for the HS line!! Though frankly I thought the HS would be wielded by anti-CA forces. The pattern of voting is odd in that almost 33% of the CA/BA votes have appeared in the last 12 hours – moving from a combined 13032 at 5:15 PM yesterday to a combined 18353 as of 8:45 AM EST. The increase in BA during that period was 2207 or 33% and for CA was 3114 or 49% – that looks suspiciously lke someone ballot stuffing for CA. (Who and why are obvious questions – and it might not be a CA supporter but a CA detractor.) My hope is that the competition organizers are as good as their word in cleaning out ballot box stuffers regardless of for whom they are voting.

  187. Iain
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #185, GrG.

    What happened to being rational and objective when observing data? Isn’t this supposed to be a science site?

    You are witnessing the power of random voting events superimposed on time zone cycles. You may as well try and find temperatures buried within tree ring patterns as make deductions about voting patterns :)

  188. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #186. That’s a good point, Pete. CA has been relatively stronger in the mornings than in the afternoons. MAny BA votes will come back into play in the afternoon.

  189. PA
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    185

    It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that just about every kid with a cell phone at Portland, South Portland and Deering High Schools (Portland ME) recieved a text this morning asking them to log in on their phones and vote for Climate Audit. I wonder how that happened, hmmmmm.

  190. Bernie
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    GrG:
    What brought you to the site? I think most of us skeptics here are still skeptics and do not take anything at face value until we have checked the data – when we can get access to it. Specifically, I am suspicious of anything that allows for multiple voting and leaves open the possibility of easy fraud.

  191. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The folks at the weblog awards are pretty good at spotting automated voting. Yesterday they removed a surge of 985 votes for “Best Food Blog” and again removed votes from “Best Asian Blog”.

    If there is cheating on this “Best Science Blog” contest, I’m sure they’ll remove those votes as well.

  192. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re: #180

    That’s it! As soon as the sun rose on the US East Coast it warmed the atmosphere, teleconnecting to the temperature-like bars on the voting results. And since CA is the only of the site in the running which is primarily about temperatures, naturally the effect is greatest for CA. I knew it was something simple like that!

  193. John A
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I think this one’s going to be a nail-biter.

    Yes Bernie, you were right in predicting the Hockeystick shaped surge. Now can you tell me next Saturday’s UK lottery numbers?

  194. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Oops, that should have been #189 in my previous message, to give credit where it is due.

  195. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:54 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #190

    You may be right but I recall that last two pro BA surges that I saw were about a time I though was late evening your west coast so it may not happen this time since voting closes about 8 hours time.

  196. Bernie
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hey John, you think I am going to share my winnings with you!

  197. GrG
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Good, skepticism is the way to go.
    I shall patiently await the new views of those that previously complained about BA & PZ. The surges over which they were so furious are starting to appear rather minor compared to this morning’s explosion. So, I must ask, where is thy furor now?

  198. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hey! CA leading by some 900 votes :) This is just like the Indy-Pats game of last week. Pats trailing until the last 10 minutes just to keep things interesting!

  199. MarkW
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CA’s lead is up to almost 900. I’m as big a partisan as anyone, but that sounds a bit suspicious to me.

  200. Abu Liam
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CA received a nice plug on Ice Cap/Newsbusters that might help explain it

  201. Bob Koss
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Icecap is also promoting CA.

  202. Deborah
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

    A lizard at Little Green Footballs asked other lizards to support you.

  203. StuartR
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I notice that Drudge currently has a link to a News Busters article that contains a link to another article headed
    “Vote for Steve McIntyres Climate Audit In the Blog Awards”, that might attract a few votes ;)

  204. Buddenbrook
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Good, skepticism is the way to go.
    I shall patiently await the new views of those that previously complained about BA & PZ. The surges over which they were so furious are starting to appear rather minor compared to this morning’s explosion. So, I must ask, where is thy furor now?

    Agree totally. It’s only what is fair and logical. Everyone can draw their own conclusions about the validity of internet polls, unless there is ID verification, which polls like this of course never will have.

    Still I’d maintain that outside of the voting surges CA got the most votes.

  205. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:14 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #188. Bernie – the numbers that you show point to an overall surge in votes. The two blogs had been running relatively evenly on smaller volumes, but when the volume surged CA got 60% or so on your numbers and BA 40% in the last 12 hours.

    Let’s view this as a statistical/auditing question which should be of interest to readers here. Is it possible that the voting populations have changed sufficiently so that CA is getting 60-40 to BA as opposed to 49.5-50.5 in the earlier returns? It’s not a prior impossible. One could think of possible new tranches of high-CA voters; readers have suggested some possibilities. It’s also possible that someone has had their hand on their scales somewhere.

    If the outcome mattered sufficiently to either party, then what you’d do is audit the results.

    In the case of the Hockey Stick which was widely relied on by the IPCC, I thought that the study was important enough that the calculations should be verified – an approach that has been often criticized. But this site is certainly committed to the idea that audits are useful.

    While it looks like CA might win right now, for most of the past few days, it looked like CA would lose. I view the 2007 Weblog Awards as fun and will be content with whatever outcome comes up – an audit would not be something that I would have requested.

    I hope that people recognize the irony for those who oppose the ideas of audits and verification – as they apply to climate studies – now becoming attuned to the importance of methodology and procedure in determining the outcome of a contest that is merely for fun. If people want to inspect the algorithms and voting patterns of the Weblog Awards, please do so. But then they should support us in our efforts to inspect algorithms and data in climate studies.

  206. cbone
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Down the stretch they come! CA has a 932 vote lead at 9:30 AM EST. 7.5 hours remain in the voting. (polls close at 12PM GMT)

  207. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Just logging into my lap-top it shows:
    CA 10208
    ba 9264

    Who’d have thunk it, 10k votes for CA!

  208. Andy
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CA just crested the 10,000 vote mark. Wow!

    Re #207, Steve as usual hit the nail squarely on the head. I’d add that the group running the Weblog Awards at least takes this “fun” process seriously enough subject the results to audit (think “internal audit” in the business world). That’s more than we can say for the Team.

  209. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Of course it is possible, Steve. 90% of your votes are man-made. If you only wanted natural votes, you shouldn’t have written about the contest at all. In that case, you would be, according to my calculation, around 1000 votes. Sorry for an inconvenient truth.

    Every asymmetric wave has some reason and I guess that I have made a few waves myself. If you’re bothered that your vote chart looks like a hockey stick, you should better think about adaptation rather than mitigation. ;-)

  210. John A
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    14:50 GMT

    CA: 10507
    BA: 9536
    Pharyngula: 5417
    JS: 3618

    Sudden mysterious surge for CA continues. Becoming increasingly skeptical about this vote.

    Calm down, John. It’s just a popularity contest.

  211. Brendan
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve is correct. Online polls are essentially useless, and have been shown to be that way again and again. So the most important outcome of this current horse race is that Steve (a) has a potentially larger new audience (b) put up his discussion on the Mannian Hockey Stick at exactly the right time.

    I think the other thing is that it shows us how others view things. I checked in on Pharyngula and came away with a bad taste in my mouth, wondering, where’s the so-called science? Bad-Astronomy is better – but it appears up front to be no more than a science opinion site. Steve gets down and dirty and does the real science. For those who may dismiss it, in the natural observed world, statistics is all. THe better you are, the more you understand (or, alternatively, find you must dismiss or question) how theories of the natural world works. Since its very difficult to set up experiments, we have to use proxies for data. Sometimes they’re good, sometimes bad, but always they themselves require analysis to even understand how they’re done. (For those who say we can set up models, computer modeling is only as good as the science behind it – can anywone tell me what the difference is between a 300 km grid model and a 50 km grid model? One is really inaccurate – the other is as good as the numerical code represents the physics…)

    Rock on Steve – congratulations on getting some new potential readers!

  212. Bernie
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve:
    I would not request an audit of such an award either. I agree totally with your point – the truth content of significant statements need to be carefully and openly evaluated. I guess my view is that the burst of votes is unlikely to come from CA readers but people who
    have been drawn here (or to BA) to make some other point that is independent of whether this is the Best Science Blog. Because
    this particularly internet voting process is subject to a large number of possible influences that detract from any reasonable meaning that can be attached to the “Best Science Blog”, the competition is “silly” though still fun. In terms of real outcomes, I would be interested in seeing how the process has impacted traffic on CA both during the competition and, say, four weeks from now. Clearly this thread has attracted a couple of new commentators. Let’s see if it helps add substantive contributors.

  213. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve McIntyre says: “If the outcome mattered sufficiently to either party, then what you’d do is audit the results.”

    Indeed. And who else would have said that first? But as a matter of interest, is there an audit trail of individual votes as they came in? In principle there’s no reason there shouldn’t be one. But at the moment all there is are a series of snapshots. And if there was fraud, how would it be detected? And how would fraud be carried out? It may not matter too much for a fun thing like the Weblog Awards, but it sure matters in national elections if computer voting is used.

    And actually the Weblog Awards do matter. If CA wins, it’ll be a small victory for sceptical science. And boy does sceptical science need a small victory these days.
    the results.

  214. jeremiah
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    i’d say the surge was mostly down to the drudgereport/newsbusters/coleman story. the drudge report gets 17 million visits a day – you’re bound to see a surge from a link like that

  215. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I think that if CA wins, it would surely be a cool prize for Steve if the organizers gave him the full records of the votes for a statistical analysis. I would be curious about the wisdom he would learn. ;-)

  216. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:54 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Yep, that’s why I asked yesterday if there’s an increased traffic on ClimateAudit. For sure a number of voters have taken the time to actually visit CA, as I did visit Pharyngula, which unfortunately was quite a disappointing experience.

  217. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This poll is just as -un-important as the poll the IPCC never held which resulted that 2500 scientists support the consensus. Scientifically nonsense, but a very powerful PR-statement. You’ll never convince the awful commenters at Pharyngula with facts and analyses, but as soon as they discover there is a new winner they’ll change tune. That’s just the way it works and so I am very happy with this development and consider this poll very important.

  218. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    test

  219. aurbo
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Last I heard at 10:45EST CA had a lead of 3,000. Apparently an article on icecap by John Coleman was given a boost by Drudge (through the NewsBusters site).

  220. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Bad Astronomy is surging much more strongly than CA right now.

    I looked at 10:49 Eastern and, as compared with John A’s earlier look., it was
    10649 – 10507
    9898 – 9536

    I blinked and BA had 100 new votes while CA had 16. So this isn’t over by any means.

  221. Iain
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Well that was fun….why did the site go down ?

  222. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    221, I’m wondering if the poll taking database system itself is introducing some lags into the accumulation of the totals that make our snapshot trends useless. The way these are piling up doesn’t seem natural to me.

  223. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I am casting two votes every 24 hours – one from my laptop and then one from my linux server instance of firefox. Then, I actually cleared the cookies on the server instance, and voted a few more times. It occurred to me that with the variety of scripting software available, I could easily write a small program to hit the polls as fast as possible… and then figure out how to get around their end of the “problem”. It would take a few minutes to write such a program in python for example.

    Not very ethical. But here’s my take: if CA wins, and wins by such trickery, it speaks to the “level” of supporters on CA. Anyone of us “nuts” who actually plays with real data using SciPy or whatever your favorite flavor is… most probably could gin a script up to do the job! Not likely to find those readers on Pharyngula… maybe on Bad Astronomy (I actually use a simialr script in python to pull data off the Sloan Digital Sky Survery SQL database – just for fun.)

    OK now… fess up. Who’s the culprit?

  224. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    That was strange. 221 became 222, and a new 221 came out of nowhere. It looks like we have similar syncronicity issues at the CA server.

  225. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Blinked again: 11 am Eastern:
    11:00 10:49 ; 9:50
    CA: 10726 10649 10507
    BA: 10210 9898 9536

    So BA got 312 votes in 10 minutes while we got 77. Won’t take long to change places. I wonder if PEter HEarnden will complain about this recent surge at BA.

    It looks like BA will be in the lead by about 11.30-11.35 am; they’ll probably take the margin to 500 votes by noon eastern and then try to sit on the lead.

  226. tpguydk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #219: I agree. This site does hands on science and so few do, and for that I greatly appreciate its existance. Hopefully you’ll get more traffic here and more people will want to ask questions and learn something.

    I have to say I’m actually a recent skeptic, and it’s learning about the IPCC process and reading this site that’s made me very skeptical of what they say the past was like.

  227. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    225, cheating by scripting (to a large degree, anyway) could be easily detected by the IP log. The only way to do large-scale cheating on one of these, and not leave a trail, is a zombienet. I don’t know how many people have access to one of those.

  228. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Another conspiracy theory:

    It is not coincidental that the current 33.2% vote for climateaudit.org is the same as the 33.2% faction, (my estimate), of scientists who are true believers in the totality of the CO2 AGW theory, a percentage vote that will convey absolute consensus status on the fact that climateaudit.org is the Best.

  229. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:54 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Ethan

    OK now… fess up. Who’s the culprit?

    Here do you think?

  230. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    219

    You’ll never convince the awful commenters at Pharyngula with facts and analyses, but as soon as they discover there is a new winner they’ll change tune.

    The power of the perceived consensus. Those are called sheeple, and there are too many of them who think they have original thoughts by following the herd.

    Steve: C’mon. This poll won’t change anyone’s mind.

  231. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #227, Steve, nice try but I said it was compromised and that’s what I meant – whoever is doing it. It just happens to be more obvious today.

    I’ve voted on four computers every day for several days and it appears from recent posts there are ways to vote many, many more times that that. I think that compromises the vote.

    Steve: I think that flawed statistical methodology compromises the MBH reconstruction. I’m glad that you agree that flawed procedures can compromise results and that you have spoken out in favor of detecting flaws that can compromise things.

  232. fFreddy
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Who did you vote for, Peter ?

  233. tpguydk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #232 I actually believed the consensus until I got curious and dug. And found Climate Audit. I’m actually pretty annoyed at being had. Right now, I tell people “The next 10 years will tell if you’re right or not.”

  234. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    229: Larry,

    You’re right about the IP log to an extent. The work around is pretty easy. I’m not “engaged”, but am tempted – if just for fun. Whether CA or BA wins is largely irrelevant, as the process has given CA and Steve a nice venue – a needed venue. That is a win!

  235. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re#234,

    Re #233, fine, not my view though, Steve. But, lets not start gnawing on CA’s favourite stick in this thread eh?

  236. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Reply

    What I find a little hard to explain, and IT guys please chime in, is that we’ve had several incidents of their server choking, followed by a very rapid run up in BA’s numbers. From what I can determine reading the thread, the earlier run up in CA’s number weren’t preceded by a server freeze. Is this basically correct, and if so, what might be going on?

  237. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re 224.

    The votes do appear to be totaled in a lagged fashion.

  238. iamnoone
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

    224 “I’m wondering if the poll taking database system itself is introducing some lags into the accumulation of the totals that make our snapshot trends useless. The way these are piling up doesn’t seem natural to me.”

    I’d imagine the total is updated in batches. Otherwise, you’d have to lock the database everytime someone tries to vote. Chances of that working successfully is inversly proportional to volume.

  239. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CA’s lead has been in the low 400’s for the past 15 minutes, as the votes pile in. We’ve either got a very evenly split group of voters, punctuated by the occasional surges due to media events, or some very well executed manipulation. I’m leaning toward the former.

  240. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    240, which would explain why things move in fits and starts. It looks like they update batchwise, but then have some interpolation algorithm to make it appear like it’s happening in real time. That would explain the peculiar behavior perfectly. I’ll bet that’s what they’re doing.

  241. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Steve, Malkin also doesn’t drive the readers for 3 days in the main article on her blog. ;-)

  242. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CA pulling ahead. Almost 600 now.

  243. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    You know that a blog is immature let alone devoted to science when it indulges in silly games like online polls.

  244. Larry Sheldon
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    ‘Tis sad to see nominally sensible people being distracted by a “poll” that is about as un-reliable and meaningless as a poll can possibly be.

    This is not even a “popularity contest”.

    (For the record, CA is the first blog I started “watching”, and one of the ones (of the ones I have looked at) that I still watch.)

    Let’s get back to important stuff.

  245. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s noon, EST. Somebody call Snerdly.

  246. Tom Vonk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Europe has voted – that’s what happens when the early morning comes in US East .
    And in Europe I know many people (rather higher level of scientific understanding) that read and sometimes even post on CA while BA is not so well known .
    I am aware that this statement has no statistical value , it is just a snapshot from my personnal surrounding .
    However if it could be generalised , I’d say that CA gets an easy lead in Europe .
    Don’t know about US .
    I have voted right now .

  247. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    You know that a blog is immature let alone devoted to science when it indulges in silly games like online polls.

    Yes, I know.

  248. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    246, 247, that’s why the blog is organized into threads. If this annoys you, go find something that doesn’t. Just like any poll or election, this kind of trend forecasting is interesting stuff in it’s own right.

    And since you’re not paying me, I don’t have to be doing what you insist. If you have employees, go boss them around.

  249. Jim O'Toole
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Re 247

    Here, here, Larry; my sentiments exactly. Como se dice, “Waste of time”?

  250. Jean S
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    BA has the poll embedded to a post.

  251. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    250, this is rich:

    No, we’re not going to abandon our policy of steering clear of political commentary, but yes, you can nonetheless vote for us!

    That’s all RC is, is political commentary. Or was usufruct a tour de force of science?

  252. Mark T.
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Almost as immature as people coming in and whining about how immature it is. This is nothing more than a light-hearted break from all the other action going on in this arena. That there exists a separate thread to do such venting is testament to Steve’s willingness to keep these discussions out of the normal science threads (yeah, even Unthreaded). ;)

    Mark

  253. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, your comparison to Malkin is misleading, although you may not have meant it that way. 1) When I looked, the Best Blog category had twice as many votes as Best Science. 2) Malkin’s actual web traffic are really huge:

    ranking
    35……. Malkin: 145,869 visits/day

    rank #76147 Climate Audit: you tell us
    Rank #737 RealClimate: 7,650 visits/day
    Rank #1016 Bad Astronomy Blog: 9,033 visits/day

    I doubt your ranking is correct, because perhaps you don’t use the sitemeter stuff.

    http://truthlaidbear.com/TrafficRanking.php

    PS, I’ve been voting for CA, but didn’t think of the multiple computer thing. That would have added about 10/day. Sorry, I have other things to do. Maybe this poll is a measure of how idle the readers are?

    Steve: I’m not comparing traffic, merely votes. Huffington and Malkin have huge traffic, but for some reason the voting volume in the BA-CA race is much higher than in the Malkin-Huffington category.

  254. Iain
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

    In the last 60 minutes BA has gained 1540 votes, while CA gained 1564. I can’t help but think we might be watching the battle of the ballot stuffers. Which makes it decidedly uninteresting.

  255. Reference
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    If the outcome of the 2007 Weblog awards was a large research grant, an audit would be most appropriate!

  256. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Why do people make the effort of coming into a room, yawning, and then leaving?

  257. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Larry S. said:

    ‘Tis sad to see nominally sensible people being distracted by a “poll” that is about as un-reliable and meaningless as a poll can possibly be.

    Given the quality of the recipients as of late, I’d rather win one of these meaningless online polls than A Nobel Peace Prize :-)

    PS. There’s still time to do a write-in entry and nominate my blog as the best unread mediocre blog on the net!!!

  258. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Can we get nested comments?

    http://meidell.dk/archives/2004/09/04/nested-comments/

  259. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, as of 9A.M. Pacific Time, we are 467 vote ahead.

  260. GrG
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #238 – Larry

    What I find a little hard to explain, and IT guys please chime in, is that we’ve had several incidents of their server choking, followed by a very rapid run up in BA’s numbers. From what I can determine reading the thread, the earlier run up in CA’s number weren’t preceded by a server freeze. Is this basically correct, and if so, what might be going on?

    Are you associating the server freeze with BA’s “run up”? Why can’t it be associated with CA’s “run up”? Wouldn’t a DDoS attack seem more plausible after an increase – to prevent the other side(s) from voting?

    And why was CA’s morning surge due to “East Coasters logging on” or newsbusters/drudge (their other surges are also A-OK); yet BA’s surges are all due to something “more sinister”. Of course, people want their side to win, but be objective, please. Some people on here on being rational about it, but others will do a 180 when the opposite of the situation presents itself.

  261. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Reply

    9:32 pacific time, 18:32 central european time, CA with 13,000+ is 750 votes ahead of BA

  262. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Reply

    263, if you read subsequent comments, there’s a plausible answer to most of those questions; having to do with how the system does database commits. And that was a question, not an accusation. It’s still not completely clear just exactly triggered their server freezes, but there are many possible sinister and non-sinister explanations.

    Just as with climate science, you can’t tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks.

  263. Buddenbrook
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Climate Audit just got about 400 votes, in around 3-5 minutes

    This is a funny poll indeed

    I’m taking it as humour now

  264. Rick Ballard
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Como se dice, “Waste of time”?

    Si dice: “Votate senza freni o vi spacco la testa tutte!”

    ‘Course, that’s just a rough translation…

  265. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #263. You put the words “more sinister” in quotations as though they were a quotation. I was unable to determine any prior use of the term so it looks you’re making a straw man.

    People are entitled to modify their interpretations of the voting as the day proceeds. My interpretation of the voting has changed. The early levels could be interpreted as an East Coast wake up. However, the level of voting has remained very high on both sides – perhaps implausibly so. Both sides blew past Arianna Huffington and Michelle Malkin earlier in the day; and now are passing Daily Kos and Little Green Footballs. Is this possible without steroids? If this was an election for Congress, either side could quite reasonably demand an audit/recount.

    Since the contest is for fun, I think that both sides can take satisfaction in being competitive. I mentioned earlier, if it’s your view that something as simple as counting votes can be flawed by biased procedures, then you should endorse the need to carefully audit all aspects of climate reconstructions used in policy decisions.

  266. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear everyone, I think that you should finally notice that the table shown on the Awards page is not real-time. It is updated only occassionally. I don’t claim that it follows that there is nothing unfair about the numbers but the things you call strange are simply not strange.

  267. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    266 – It’s not humor, but you’re right it’s being “adjusted” I assure you. But I think what’s happened is CA got a solid Junkscience bump as well as several others. And if nothing else it’s a huge marketing boost for CA. So keep voting every vote counts.

    CA head by 913 votes!

  268. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    266, This has been a learning experience. As Luboš said, the actual database updates aren’t real-time, and so the ratios will change abruptly, as the flash display interpolates results. So the most likely explanation for an abrupt change in the ratio is a database transaction.

  269. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

    268, Steve:

    As I mentioned earlier, if it’s your view that something as simple as counting votes can be flawed by biased procedures, then you should endorse the need to carefully audit all aspects of climate reconstructions used in policy decisions.

    And that’s the moral of the story. It seems like Bad Asstronomers get the concept of skepticism when the shoe’s on the other foot. It’s not a difficult or foreign concept, it’s all about whose (carbon di)ox(ide) is being Gored.

  270. GrG
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #265 – Larry, I agree.

    #268 – Steve, the emphasis on the sinister part was mine in order to show its absurdity; I should’ve used italics, I suppose, so my appologies. So hold up with trying to straw man me, please.

    Of course people can change their opinions; but flip-flopping is something else, and that’s what people here should be careful not to do. The only side I advocate here is that of being rational.

  271. GrG
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I agree with 265 Larry, not 272 Larry, BTW; bad timing on submitting…

  272. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Reply

    CA – 14021
    BA – 12924
    ———-
    CA Up 1097
    4 Hours to go!

  273. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    We’ll never know how much of this is cheating, organized or otherwise, and how much of this is the power of the electronic chain letter. Either one (taken together with the quirks of their system) explains the observable. The numbers of google hits for this tends to support the theory that this is simply a proxy war for the left and right blogospheres. Like it or not, I think that’s what this is.

    This case history will probably be incorporated into a PhD dissertation in computer science.

  274. Rick Ballard
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Luboš,

    Really, really not strange when campaign ads continue to show up at various other blog venues.

  275. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    despite the name, quotation, it’s not always used as a strict quotation. In common usage, quotes are sometimes used to “paraphrase”, sometimes it’s meant to simply indicate a string. For example, I searched for “web traffic ranking”. Sometimes, quotes are used to express doubt about some “term” or phrase.

    In this case, he is paraphrasing.

    >> I’m not comparing traffic, merely votes.

    but why? Since both are a kind of popularity contest, which is more accurate? Perhaps there is some psychological need? And what about some of these commenters? They seem to identify themselves so strongly with CA, that they use the term “we”, like partisans with an “us vs them” complex. And then they ridicule people who don’t like the poll.

    >> Huffington and Malkin have huge traffic, but for some reason the voting volume in the BA-CA race is much higher than in the Malkin-Huffington category.

    As I said, the Best Blog category was running hotter, 52k votes vs 38k in Best Science. It’s just that PostSecret has 24k of that vote, maybe because there is playmate picture there. So, a playmate is artificially depressing the vote for Malkin, and you think that means you’re doing well? I’m confused, because I thought this blog was all about “seeking truth through careful numerical analysis”.

    The above was meant in a “light hearted” way…

  276. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    >> the actual database updates aren’t real-time

    Well, database updates occur as they are submitted. It’s probably just that the web page itself is cached in memory, and only refreshed once in a while.

  277. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    279, Count how many votes are cast per second. That would be a lot of disk thrashing if they were individually written. Now observe how the numbers behave. It’s pretty clear that there’s some sort of economization going on. It makes a lot more sense when you look at it that way.

    Maybe you’re saying the same thing in a little different way, it’s just that there’s pretty obviously a client-side app doing something between page caches. That’s the interpolation that I’m talking about. I don’t think that all page refreshes actually update the data to the client-side app. I think it’s timed.

  278. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The comments on the Pharyngula site have been very interesting… mostly well thought out reasonable arguments leading to a few people changing their position and agreeing to look at CA for what it is.

  279. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Correction to #230. Based on updated information, both 33.2% values below should be updated to 35.9%

    “Another conspiracy theory:

    It is not coincidental that the current 33.2% vote for climateaudit.org is the same as the 33.2% faction, (my estimate), of scientists who are true believers in the totality of the CO2 AGW theory, a percentage vote that will convey absolute consensus status on the fact that climateaudit.org is the Best.”

  280. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve,re 268, it is quite possible that the CA/BA race can blow by races for “bigger bloggers” simply because there are a lot of people for whom CA – one way or another – matters a lot. If you are on the Team or support the IPCC’s view of the data, CA is trouble. And, with any number of political parties having climbed aboard the AGW bandwagon, that sort of trouble has huge ramifications.

    Web polls are meaningless but they attract attention. Win or lose CA is now a good deal more famous than it was last week. People who had bought the “consensus” without really thinking about it are reading things which give them pause.

  281. John A
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #256 Gunnar,

    Here are the Stats for CA for the past couple of weeks. You can see that Steve has got a lot more eyeballs since this absurd horse race got really going but generally CA’s stats are increasing slowly. Every so often Steve manages to hit a home run with the media and the stats increase substantially, and then fall back slowly to a new equilibrium slightly higher than the previous one.

  282. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE283 I think you speak of “pollarization” ;-)

    What a day, my shiny new laptop went DOA in the last few hours and I left it open and on the voting page at webawards. Another reason to hate flash :-)

  283. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    OMG! It’s a hockey stick!

  284. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    No longer an argument – CA is the Best. Congratulations… I did read that right, didn’t I ? My eyes are a bit off today.
    A.

  285. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The easiest way to check if the poll is kosher, is simply check the IP’s of the incoming votes. The poll is written in flash and is not verified by the IP so my guess if anyone is “adjusting” the numbers they are not changing their IP not at these speeds, viewing the IP’s will most likely turn up large blocks of votes on both sides coming from one or two IP addresses. If this poll had a cash prize involved, it should be looked at, but it’s just good fun, so may the best hacker win!

    Now there would be an interesting poll; Who’s the best at hacking poll sites?

  286. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    >> Count how many votes are cast per second. That would be a lot of disk thrashing if they were individually written. Now observe how the numbers behave. It’s pretty clear that there’s some sort of economization going on. It makes a lot more sense when you look at it that way.

    It’s interesting how your comments look when you get into an area that I know a whole lot about. They appear ignorant, no offense intended. Yet, your post projects confidence in what you write.

    Votes/second? A modern relational database can make 38k updates in fractions of a second. There is no way that this voting contest is overwhelming any database that I know of, so your comments appear Mannian.

    There is no client side app, other than the browser. Unless you’re talking about the little animation that “appears” to be counting votes, but this is simply a visual gimick. There is the database, a web server, and the browser. The web server is caching pages. Periodically, it refreshes the page content from the database, which IS updated in “real time”.

  287. Hasse@Norway
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re 286

    The number of votes for CA is unprecedented in at least the last 1000 years. Probably 10000 years.

  288. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    284, let’s see if we can correlate CA’s traffic with temperatures (on different time scales, of course).

  289. Earle Williams
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #291

    Get rid of the Ides of October Warm Period and it’s a dead ringer!

  290. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Gunnar, that is a flash app. Try it with a browser without flash. There’s no way in hades that those counters are being driven that quickly through the internet. Something’s definitely being done on the client side. The rest of it’s conjecture.

    But just watch the numbers. That’s not the pattern of real-time voting.

  291. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #284, thanks. However, there are no units, so I’m guessing that we’re looking at page hits? I think the other stats were unique visitors per day, so that would be a much smaller number than page hits.

  292. PeterS
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s worth wondering if a large anti CA block vote might actually be cast for CA. The outcome would be CA winning the poll and later being publicly discredited for ‘cheating’. The discredit would have a lot more impact-value at undermining CA’s claim to ‘honesty’ than the winning.

  293. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA is really stirring up a storm at Boing Boing: Climate change denialists winning the race for “Best Science Blog”

    As a frequent reader of both CA and BB, I’m shocked at the reaction from BB readers. But CA has quite a few defenders! I’ve tried to put in my 2 cents at BB.

  294. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    295, add that to the possibility list. Yes, that’s entirely possible. The reverse is also possible, too. And both at the same time.

    I still think what we’re looking at primarily is the propagation of electronic chain letters, both through email and through websites.

  295. tpguydk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    been linked at Daily Kos so i expect another surge for BA, although the two posts I clicked on had someone with sense who kept saying skepticism isn’t denialism. they got ignored it looks like though.

  296. Bernie
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    JohnA
    Did you notice the amazing periodicity in the data? I bet that it is also correlated with CO2 emissions from automobiles? The more CO2 the higher the interest in CA. What say you add a 7-day filter and see what happens.

  297. Mot Normalt
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just called my old father, and had a climate crash-course ending with a CA vote.
    Earlier this day, I did the same here at work with multipple persons.

    It’s fun to see all the speculations with the statistics here. Remember; we are dealing with humans now!

    This reminds me of my exams, starting to read faaaar too late..
    Lesson for next year; start earlier!

    Keep up the good testing work Steve! Karl Popper is my hero, and this site is hitting a major chord!

  298. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA just broke 15,000. This is obviously more than just the CA gang.

  299. tf
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Ha. Comment #2 says, “Yeah, Bad Astronomy suddenly got hundred of votes out of nowhere… I can think of only two explanations: 1. Someone posted a link to a very popular liberal/AGW forum/network to defeat those “denialists”. In this case people who have never read BA would be voting BA, which goes against the spirit of the whole thing. 2. Someone cheated to vote multiple times. Shame on him/her.”

    Looking at the post of this blog (“Nov 7 10 am: CA is now over 700 votes ahead of Pharyngula”) compared to now (Nov 8, noon) where CA is 10,000 votes ahead of Pharyngula, I have to wonder if commenter #2 will stand by his assertions now that it’s clearly CA who is playing games with the votes.

  300. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    295 – No, it won’t happen because this is not a life and death fight for CA. Steve would just have to say the cheating was wrong and whoever did it was wrong, and he’s in the clear. If it gets out that weblogawards.org can be easily hacked, it’s their bread and butter, if they lost their reputation they lose revenue, if a hacking issue came up my guess is they would keep it quiet.

  301. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Larry, I’m not conjecturing about an area that I have 30 years of experience in. If you had read what I wrote, you would have read the sentence:

    Unless you’re talking about the little animation that “appears” to be counting votes, but this is simply a visual gimick

    Whether it’s JavaScript or Flash makes no difference. The page is rendered on the web server from cached data, with either flash or javascript embedded in the page. The page is delivered to your browser when you request it. The browser then executes the javascript or if it’s flash, runs the local flash component to “animate” the vote bars. Either way, it’s irrelevant. You whole #280 is extremely inaccurate, yet you wrote it with extreme confidence. I find that strange.

  302. SolarPowered
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This lurker has been commending this site and the work of John Daly to our Australian journalists for years. Alas, the absence of understanding, education, political expedience or the greening of the bureaucracy has failed to make a dint in the absolute nonsense that spews forth from our media.
    The media science guru (Dr. Karl) declared AGW must be true as there is more papers for the theory than against it.
    Our learned institution distanced themselves from Professor Bob Carter as he did not represent the views of that institution.
    Some half-wit at Griffith University in the carbon IPCC trough declared how smart the team was, after all they had solved the ozone hole (same comment made by (bear man pig) Gore here in Aus on the day of a record thinning of ozone over the antarctic)!

    Climate Audit should receive this puny accolade and the contributors should bask in the glory with the support of the astronomy geeks. When Royal Societies are choking science and Nobel prizes are being handed out for terror every bit helps!

  303. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, I’m tapped out now, having cast the last possible vote on my LAN. At the time CA was up about 1200, but if Daily Kos gets into the action BA may well be able to pull it out at the end.

    BTW, the down side of all the publicity for CA is that we’re likely to be inundated with the skeptical equilivant of Daily Kos type posters for a while which may leave Steve no time to do other than delete policital posts.

  304. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CAn someone help me find a reference: the argument is made from time to time, that , if the Hockey Stick were wrong, the situation would be much worse due to greater climate sensitivity. Can anyone locate a quote for me?

  305. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I have to wonder if commenter #2 will stand by his assertions now that it’s clearly CA who is playing games with the votes.

    Yes. Commenter #2 stood by their viewpoint and asserted this already in comment #170. You can search for the commenters name within the browser to save yourself having to read the whole thread.

  306. iamnoone
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There is no client side app, other than the browser. Unless you’re talking about the little animation that “appears” to be counting votes, but this is simply a visual gimick. There is the database, a web server, and the browser. The web server is caching pages. Periodically, it refreshes the page content from the database, which IS updated in “real time”.

    they’d have to lock the “total” field to avoid the “lost update”. it would be easier to write the vote to a temporary table and update the total field from that table via a periodic process. The temporary table would have records with AUTO_INCREMENT ids to keep them unique. The database will ensure the ids are unique by using locking code that’s way more robust than anything a flash author could write. The temporary table would also allow for recovering votes after crashes. It’s extremely tough locking filesystems and databases without getting race conditions that cause lockouts. I don’t know how they’re doing it, but I wouldn’t waste my time writing code capable of locking out 45 submits till the current one is complete.

  307. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Gunnar, once again, we’re arguing when we’re in agreement on the fundamentals. But the animation isn’t irrelevant. I’m speculating that the animation is also doing some interpolation. This is based on the way the gap seems to move in steps. No, it’s not for sure. But if you assume that, the behavior of the numbers makes a lot more sense.

    It would be nice if there were a way to automatically capture the displayed results at, say, 30 second intervals, and graph them. But since they’re flash, there’s no way that I know of to do that, and it’s too late anyway.

    It was doing this even when vote volumes were a lot lower; even when the site was virtually inaccessible. It isn’t so obvious with several hundred votes per minute, but it was a little more obvious when it was 3 and 4 votes per minute. You’d expect the ratio of differences to be jumping all over the place under those circumstances, and it wasn’t.

  308. Papertiger
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    They gave Al Gore a prize for saying; the fight is over, the science is decided, a consensus has been reached, there is no argument.

    They called Steve a crank on the Wikipedia.
    Then they sent out their goon squad to squash the Climate Audit.
    Over 6000 cyber attacks every week.
    Knocked him offline after he proved Hansen had screwed the pooch.

    The Awards committee put him on the card as an afterthought, touting the fight as a chance for a “nobody” to become a “somebody”. The current and past champions dismiss him as the anti-science blogger.
    Pharyngula and Bad Astronomy joke among themselves about which one should get the title this year, “You want it again BA? – No you take it this time.”

    The match is supposed to be easily won by Bad Astronomy, but someone forgot to tell Steve, who sees this as his shot at the big time.
    With a small band of followers.

    DING DING DING DING

    http://www.discoverynet.com/~ajsnead/allsongs_1/rocky.html

    “..it really don’t matter if I lose this fight. It really don’t matter if this guy opens my head, either. ‘Cause all I wanna do is go the distance. Nobody’s ever gone the distance with the hockyteam, and if I can go that distance, you see, and that bell rings and I’m still standin’, I’m gonna know for the first time in my life, see, that I weren’t just another bum from the blogisphere. ”

    Thirteen thousand votes and counting. Does that sound like the argument is over to you, Mr. Gore?

    …he shook up the world. … he changed history.

    STEVEN! STEVEN! STEVEN! STEVEN!

    IT AIN’T OVER MR GORE – NOTHING IS OVER.

  309. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CAI recall that someone help me find a reference: the argument is made from time to time, that , if the Hockey Stick were wrong, the situation would be much worse due to greater climate sensitivity. Can anyone locate a quote for me?

    What sort of quote are you looking for? Wm Connelly certainly said this over on Stoat, do you need a higher authority quote?

    http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/11/big-picture.html

  310. Bernie
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just went to BoingBoing. No facts, no data, just “all knowing” opinions.

  311. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #302 >> Ha. Comment #2 says… now that it’s clearly CA who is playing games with the votes

    #2 was wrong, and so are you in #302. If you look at the web traffic in #284, you will see 24k. There is nothing suspicious about a couple hundred people voting between cache refreshes.

    Out of 24k hits, if only 10k of them voted for CA, then you would have the change in vote totals from nov 7 to nov 8. If each person voted from 2 different computers, then only 5k needed to vote, out of 24k. No reason to resort to accusations of foul play.

  312. Dev
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The results displayed by the flash applet come from a separate text/xml file from the weblogawards site. They are NOT embedded in the flash swf code.

  313. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, how about:

    http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/borehole-jgr03.pdf

    It has been argued [Huang et al., 2000] that the borehole reconstructions, because they indicate larger temperature trends over the past five centuries, imply a higher climate sensitivity than the other proxy-based reconstructions (though if the assumed forcing history is reliable, it is difficult to rectify this history with the substantial trend in the borehole estimates well before the 20th century when anthropogenic forcing was negligible, and only modest, natural radiative forcing variations were likely to play any role [see, e.g., Crowley, 2000]).

  314. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #312. That’s what I was looking for. It’s too bad that Connolley has gotten so petty at wikipedia; he often has interesting takes on things.

  315. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The gap is dropping like a rock. It’s around 900 now. The attack of the Kossacks?

  316. Mot Normalt
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Okay all introverted lurkers! (This is my third post ever here)
    Let’s show all these “skeptics” what a “skeptic” with motivation can do..
    Call a friend right now, apologize for all the climate talk you have polluted the conversations with, and promise to shut up (except when you are asked spesifically), if they just give a vote to CA right now.

  317. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Bad Astronomy is gaining again. The combined volume is insane. It might hit 50,000 by the time the polls end with both sites over 20,000 at the present rate.

  318. MOSHPIT
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 288. black hats are behaving themselves. Only an f**ktard would hack a blog vote.

    Somebody build this counterfactual to Darwin (jim B) a shorter bus to take to school.

    My canadian Mohel can keep the tip if he snips.

  319. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    312, this is telling:

    There are, as shown by the graph, a whole pile of records that agree on the main points but disagree in detail. Resolving this is an active and valuable area of research. If you’re interested in policy, though, you’ve gone too far down. Go back.

    In other words, do my bidding, moron. Don’t ask questions, just do as I say.

  320. Iain
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #302, and how do you deduce that “it’s clearly CA who is playing games with the votes” from the following voting patterns?


    17:00 18:00 19:00 (GMT)
    sciguy 12 10 10
    JS 96 67 62
    ITP 7 7 5
    JBS 2 5 1
    Phar 83 72 70
    BAB 1540 1149 1137
    ISW 9 7 5
    SB 5 4 5
    CA 1564 1726 1142
    BA 4 4 6

    ????

  321. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Bad Astronomy is really sprinting. The margin is now under 800 votes and changing very fast.

  322. brian
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “IT AIN’T OVER MR GORE – NOTHING IS OVER”
    That’s just one example of the tone surrounding this contest … the ideology battle lines are even more clearly drawn … while a good showing in this contest certainly brings more attention to CA, it also brings more ridiculousness in my opinion. Hopefully SteveMc won’t have to spend time moderating commenters (both venting loyalists and rabid attackers) when he could spend it continuing to do the analyses he’s been doing.

  323. jae
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, I’m doing my part.

  324. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    326, if you don’t like this thread, don’t come here. Do you make a habit of walking into people’s homes and complaining about the beer cans?

  325. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    gap is under 670 now. and falling like a stone.

  326. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    >> they’d have to lock the “total” field to avoid the “lost update”. it would be easier to write the vote to a temporary table and update the total field from that table via a periodic process.

    Ok, there is no reason for a total field and no chance of a “lost update”. You presume a stupid db schema. There is a table Vote, with columns BlogID & IPAddress.

    When the page renders, it does SELECT count(*) FROM Vote

    iamnoone, the rest of your post is non sensical.

    >> Gunnar, once again, we’re arguing when we’re in agreement on the fundamentals.

    I hardly think so. I’m speculating that this is your response to being strongly challenged.

    >> But the animation isn’t irrelevant. I’m speculating that the animation is also doing some interpolation. This is based on the way the gap seems to move in steps.

    Oh now you’re speculating, but no hint of that in #280. There is no mystery. The cache expires every so often, could be 5 minutes, could be 30. When it does, the next page request causes it to render fresh. The page then executes SQL statements against the DB. HTML is constructed, along with the data and the embedded flash or javascript. The HTML is saved in the cache, and then delivered back to the requesting browser. When the browser displays the page to the user, it runs the animation. The animation cannot possibly be changing the numbers from what they were when the page was rendered on the server. Subsequent requests from thousands of others receive the cached version until the cache expires again. Haven’t you ever noticed on this site:

    “Due to caching, your comment may take up to 15 minutes to be displayed.”

    Or were you thinking that everyone sits completely idle for 15 minutes, then everyone writes a flurry of posts in that last minute?

  327. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The Kossaks have arrived. Let’s see how much depth they have.

  328. brian
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Larry#328…my comment was complimenting CA’s work and my concern it will be compromised…your love-it-or-leave-it attitude seems contrary to the spirit of this blog: to promote skepticism and open discussion. thanks for making me feel welcome.

  329. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CAn someone help me find a reference: the argument is made from time to time, that , if the Hockey Stick were wrong, the situation would be much worse due to greater climate sensitivity. Can anyone locate a quote for me?

    If I remember correctly, this was also stated by Cuffey at the NAS report press conference. I haven’t been able to find a transcript, so I can’t confirm this.

  330. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Or were you thinking that everyone sits completely idle for 15 minutes, then everyone writes a flurry of posts in that last minute?

    I’ve never actually observed this. This would be pretty boring if we had to wait 15 minutes for a response.

  331. MOSHPIT
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 328. If the beer cans are Empty? ya, I do complain.

  332. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    MArgin down to 500. It looks like BA will be in the lead in about 15 minutes.

  333. cbone
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I love the logic from some of the anti-CA folks on the other sites.

    I’m paraphrasing here: “Its just a stuipid poll, it doesn’t mean anything. Go vote for BA so the skeptics can’t win.”

    Am I the only one who finds it rather silly to dismiss the poll as meaningles, while simultaneously urging people to participate at the same time!

  334. MOSHPIT
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 333.

    ” gives brian a pink belly”

    Dude, you make a fine contribution here. Don’t take your ball and go home.
    Leave the ball.

    Don’t take stuff on a silly thread seriously mate. .. punches you in the shoulder

  335. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    333, That “love it or leave it” was wrt the thread, not the site. In case you hadn’t noticed, this thread is about a specific subject, and that subject is the weblog awards. It’s completely illogical to me to come to a thread that doesn’t interest you, and complain about the subject of the thread. There are plenty of other active threads, if this isn’t to your liking.

  336. MOSHPIT
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 337. Odds?

  337. Steve Moore
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From a Boing Boing commenter:

    I’m sad that my favorite science blog on climate change (realclimate.org) didn’t even make the list. It’s like the only blog I’ve seen where they use, y’know, actual science, and present things as “just the facts.” Plus because its run by actual climate scientists, they actually regularly do updates on the most recent developments in the field. I think the problem is that they discuss technical details, but have little of the show business of more popular pundits on the matter.

    Yep, “y’know, actual science”, by actual climate scientists.
    None of that “show business” stuff (and no transparency, no statistical validation, no archving…)

    Sheesh!

  338. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA 15501
    BA 14924

  339. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The gap dropped below 500, and then bounced to 580, and And then back to 538. We’re in a trading range, it would appear.

  340. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA 15879
    BA 15389

  341. tpguydk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    341: on the top post at Daily Kos they’re still promoting that CA is a climate denialist site. That’s a big site so they’ll probably push Bad Astronomy’s numbers up.

  342. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Now it’s up to 944. What’s going on?

  343. Buddenbrook
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This has been mentioned before, but now I observed it first hand. The votes are not updated in real time it seems. I updated the page and CA had 15800 votes I updated it second time 10-15 seconds later, and CA had 16100 votes. And then about 45-60 seconds later 16,500 votes. Now again 1,000+ ahead.

  344. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    >> I’ve never actually observed this. This would be pretty boring if we had to wait 15 minutes for a response.

    Oh, there is definitely caching going on here, but it’s probably set a lot lower, like 2 minutes or something.

    #316, that’s really irrelevant to my description of how it works. Yes, in reality, a page is not one post and response, but is made up of multiple post/responses. Still, the file in question is a cache of the actual data.

    It’s interesting that when confronted with an unknown, humans will immediately begin to construct speculative theories about it, or accuse someone of foul play. I guess we really don’t like being ignorant about how something works, myself included.

  345. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    When the gap jumps that quickly, it can only mean one of four things:

    1) Somebody (among us) is cheating,

    2) WA just discovered a block of bad BA votes, and deleted them,

    3) Their system is quirky, and it’s a data dynamics thing, or

    4) Some major website or other media outlet just issued a request on behalf of CA.

    Did I miss any?

  346. cbone
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    1060…

    I’m guessing that there are several thumbs on both sides of the scales here…Anyway, as they say in hollywood: Any PR is good PR. The folks who have an open mind and are willing to challenge their beliefs will find this site to be intellectually stimulating. The rest, well they will get scared off by the actual science content and instead go back to their snarky social babble sites.

  347. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just did a little something, let’s see if the gap changes

    Me too, I just called a friend in China and asked him to go waving his arms around in a field of butterflies–even if CA doesn’t win because of that, I’m hoping the chaos effect will make it rain in Alabama.

  348. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    back down to 700 votes or so; then over 1000 again. I accept the comments from some computer guys that we’re seeing caching effects, but I for one don’t understand the pattern, if any, and would welcome any explanation of the seeming stutter steps.

  349. Jason D.
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I wouldn’t be to worried about CA being compromised by legions of pollitcal based skeptics. For instance, there is a refreshing lack of AGW trolls here. Mainly because blanket statements without supporting reference don’t fly here. And as someone pointed out, they don’t get the return ad homins that they crave. Likewise, the P Skeptic trolls couldn’t(and can’t) make blanket statements here without being confronted. Nor will they find immediate assurances that GW is not AGW. This site statistically and scientifically tears mainstream papers apart and refudiates work. This may invalidate certain aspects of the AGW pillars, but Steve is pretty reserved on overall AGW validity.

  350. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Over 1100 now. There’s some strangeness going on.

  351. MrPete
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    At the very least, the rapid change indicates there’s a lot of interest.

    Please do recognise that we could be seeing a “natural” increase rather than “induced”. Since thousands of people voted before today, we can expect various “bumps” as their 24 hour waits come to an end.

    I’m skeptical about the need to go find someone to blame, until proven otherwise.

    Just like with AGW.

  352. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t see how the conclusion

    The votes are not updated in real time it seems.

    follows from

    I updated the page and CA had 15800 votes I updated it second time 10-15 seconds later, and CA had 16100 votes. And then about 45-60 seconds later 16,500 votes.

    If we had 24k hits yesterday, it’s certainly more on this last day of the poll, with conservative blogs all over pushing CA. I could well imagine 35k hits, mostly new people who are pre-disposed to vote for CA. This 35k is not spread over 24 hours, but clumped into prime browsing hours, which could be as little as 5 hours. That could be 6000/hour average. Your report of 15800 was at 1:38pm, and at 3:08, I read 16,672. That’s 872/1.5 hours. Hardly extraordinary.

  353. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Almost 2000. This definitely isn’t right, unless some major media outlet just issued a call for votes.

  354. pk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 1:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Holy moly, the gap is up to about 21000 now.

  355. pk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    That would be 2100.

  356. Jason D.
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Silver lining: of the new visitors, most will never come back, but some will stay and learn something.

  357. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    353 Steve, The cachingg issue goes away if you close your browser window(s) and then open it fresh and put in the weblog award URL…they have somme bandwidth saving mechanism…they made mention of it on their site but can’t find the reference now.

  358. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve,

    Funny, I’m seeing you ahead by over 2,000

  359. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 361. NO. some will stay and teach us something. There is more knowledge outside the site
    than inside the site ( that’s trivially true of any site)

  360. pk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, you’ve just about reached the combined total of Pharyngula and BA from last year.

  361. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    When the gap jumps that quickly, it can only mean one of four things:

    1) Somebody (among us) is cheating,
    2) WA just discovered a block of bad BA votes, and deleted them,
    3) Their system is quirky, and it’s a data dynamics thing, or
    4) Some major website or other media outlet just issued a request on behalf of CA.

    Did I miss any?

    Battling Bots! The CA Bot got in late, but is 50% faster! I the IP’s would tell the story.

  362. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    >> but I for one don’t understand the pattern, if any, and would welcome any explanation of the seeming stutter steps.

    Maybe I’m not understanding. What is puzzling you?

  363. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Larry, maybe as things get down to the end they are Vetting votes before crediting them

    Which makes the count look bursty

  364. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    You see these huge, almost instant jumps, followed by long periods of relative stability. Again, and again. It could be explained by word getting to various media and web outlets, but it sure seems like a system quirk. Maybe it’s a combination of both.

  365. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Can we talk about the melting ice or Solar power?

  366. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    367, the CA lead jumped by 1000 in under a minute.

  367. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #364, wisdom at last

    >> You see these huge, almost instant jumps, followed by long periods of relative stability

    Larry, haven’t I explained that?

  368. A Hax0r
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    A hax0r might be backing you up ;) Who knows …

    PS: Heard the others (BA) have backups also! It’s a backups’ battle.
    Either way this blog will win! By ranking or publicity…

  369. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    366, let’s hope it’s not the battling zombiebots, or we’ll never get to the bottom of this.

  370. Rick Ballard
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Maybe Kristen has a rather wide social network – this innertubes thing can be pretty amazing.

  371. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    372, so you’re sure that this is 100% an artifact of the way their site works?

  372. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA is ahead of BA by 2000, 35 minutes before the deadline. A possible hypothesis is that the whole awards software is fake and creates artificially high numbers and fake dramatic changes of fortune in order to attract people, voters, and advertisers. ;-)

  373. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Your clock is wrong, Steve! Why does it say 2:12 above when it is 21:25 ro 3:25 EST or …?

  374. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    So what is there? Something like a half hour left in the voting? Still anyone’s game the way things are going though CA was ahead 1800+ last I looked.

  375. Mot Normalt
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The lurkers networks counts!! Thanks to all!
    MSN is great for this!

  376. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hour and a half left. The CA server clock is wrong.

  377. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Iv’e been trying to drum up support here in New Zealand but it can’t be just that cause I don’t think there’s that many people in New Zealand!!

  378. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    # 375 LOL Rick, ;)

  379. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA just got a plug on Daily Kos.

  380. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    >> so you’re sure that this is 100% an artifact of the way their site works?

    Yes, considering that:

    Almost all high volume sites are cached.
    The vote site is, especially obvious when you look at the total. I checked 10 minutes ago, it was 45,096. I checked just now, it was 45,096. The page is cached. DB updates are occuring as people vote, just the page is held staticaly in cache for a while.
    The vote changes referenced do not seem extraordinary given normal web traffic. Most people have a hard imagining how many people there are. Take off from big city (LA effect is best), and it’s amazing to see neighborhoods as far as the eye can see. And of course, the web is global. Just hope that drudge doesn’t link CA, since that would be indistinguishable from a DOS attack.

    I did just notice the server time is different that EST, so my previous post should have read:

    Your report of 15800 was at 1:38pm, and at 2:08, I read 16,672. That’s 872/.5 hours = 1700/hour. Hardly extraordinary.

  381. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, you’re right, Larry, 75 minutes left now. I confused GMT and Central Europe. Who invented that a town called London somewhere on the fringe is the center of the world’s timezones had to be crazy. ;-)

  382. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The sudden surge in votes for BA was the 2500 IPCC scientists who reached a consensus on AGW, a block vote.

  383. Mot Normalt
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    LOL. I just took a phone to my sister.
    She said: “I hope I just voted for something reasonable”

    Reason able.
    Yes. She did. Steve is reason able. This is what this is all about; reasoning without an agenda. Learning by jumping into it, and publishing as you go. The discussion is entertaining and very educating.

    This is why lurkers call sisters and friends for a vote. A tool equally available for the voting-copetitors.

  384. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    OK, some of you guys don’t understand flash, and this poll program is written in flash. Flash is cached on YOUR computer the cache is also held there under your temporary internet files. Jumps in the poll is not on their computer it’s actually on yours, that’s why it can be hacked in the first place, it’s a client side system. So no one will see the same cache and some programs will not cache the flash at all. If you have no cache, you should see a nice smooth increase in the poll, I do. I use firefox and have no problem watching vote by vote come through. So the cache your seeing is not there’s it’s yours, but YES there are bots running on this system. How do I know because I’ve made them before and can see their patterns.

    This is not my doing, but I know it’s being done.

  385. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    If someone only wants the flash with the votes, it is

    http://2007.weblogawards.org/flash_poll.swf?poll_id=117&brought-to-you-by-the-reference-frame

  386. Alan Johnson
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #386 Steady on, Lubos;when GMT was invented, London was where it was at, so to speak. Besides, it upset the French, so we felt obliged, really.

  387. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Not much help, Lobos. It just reads the cache on this computer which for some strange reason has been stuck on 7300 total votes for a couple days. Even when it let me vote this morning it still gave the old vote total. OTOH on the other computers in the house the totals update when I refresh, at least they do occasionally. I assume that’s a function of the cache.

  388. Steve Moore
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 2:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    snip

    An obviously well-considered comment by someone very familiar with ClimateAudit.

  389. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA 19182
    BA 17527

  390. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Ah, Moondancer, welcome!

    I see you still don’t understand that this isn’t a right-wing site, despite it’s regular population containing a large number of right-wingers (myself included – for clarity). Steve McIntyre isn’t right-wing and neither are quite a number of others as well. Moreover, he studiously snuffs out partisan political bickering. No liberal is going to be asked to turn in his birkenstocks before entering. All that’s asked is a scientific POV.

  391. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    One prediction’s come true: the total for science blogs is over 50,000.

  392. Doug
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Note to liberals who feel this is a right wing conspiracy.

    It is not. I have followed it for years and send money when I can.

    I am a flaming liberal. When Bush got reelected I moved to Canada. I favor drastic cuts in fossil fuel use. Not because of any proof that CO2 is going to fry us, but for all the other environmental reasons.

    The CO2 issue is being worked out. I don’t think it is as bad as feared. People like Steve are working on it, and hopefuly our policies will be based on good science.

    Peace to you.

  393. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA 19585
    BA 18126

  394. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well 30 minutes to go and CA leads by about 1500 votes. It’s a done deal. Well if this proves nothing else it proves Steve’s fans know more about computers than Bad Astronomy’s fans.

  395. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #399:

    One has to laugh with comments like this (in a good way). Let’s do remember that this is just a poll, and at worst, a game. At least here we’ve been having fun dissecting the statistics of the polls, whereas on the other front-runner’s sites there has been a lot of angry arm-flailing and name-calling, even when they were ahead.

  396. fFreddy
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well 30 minutes to go and CA leads by about 1500 votes. It’s a done deal.

    As it says on the votes page:

    RESULTS ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL WINNERS ARE ANNOUNCED! Each poll is checked during the voting and after polls close for excessive voting from individual machines. If excess voting is found it is noted and the votes are removed.

    It ain’t over till it’s over …

  397. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Time me thinks for the arrival of a fat lady with a voice!

  398. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I wish it was Pharyngula in second place. Then I could tell them to pray for a miracle.

  399. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA 19654
    BA 18330

  400. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    That fat lady better start two-stepping it in those stelletos. I’m suspecting that both sides are tapped out.

  401. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    fFreddy – Thank You, I didn’t see that.

    I’m a huge fan of climateaudit and Steve, I’ve donated money the whole nine yards, but I would rather see him lose honestly then win by dishonest means. That goes the same with all of the participants in this little shindig.

  402. Andy
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #397

    I am a flaming liberal.

    Wonder how many tons of GHGs a flaming liberal throws off :-)

  403. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA 19724
    BA 18542

    with about 15 minutes to go.

  404. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I spoke too soon. BA just picked up about 200 in a minute.

  405. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    As Bill Shankly, a famous English soccer coach once said: Winning isn’t a matter of life and death, it’s much more important than that.

  406. Georg Dimitrov
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #406,

    Don’t be afraid to win. It’s quite clear that there is also a huge amount of ballot stuffing for BA, and my guess is that both balance out.

  407. Paul
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Go read the vitriolic nonsense Phil Plait is spouting over at BA. For some it is more than a trivial poll.

    After jumping up and down like a baby, leading to Steve’s clarifications in an earlier post, said Bad Astronomer is now doing exactly the thing he complained he wasn’t doing.

  408. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA 19750
    BA 18631

    with about 12 minutes to go.

  409. Mot Normalt
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well 30 minutes to go and CA leads by about 1500 votes. It’s a done deal. Well if this proves nothing else it proves Steve’s fans know more about computers than Bad Astronomy’s fans.

    I have done my share. For me it meant I had to call a bunch.
    As I said before, calling friends is a tool available to all.

    To the statistics minded: Remember the lurkers calling the friends!

  410. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    As I said, Steve’s prediction of a total of over 50,000 has already happened, but unless something changes, it’s unlikely CA will make it to 20,000, and almost impossible for BA to do so.

  411. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Georg Dimitrov – I agree, and to be honest I’ve been watching for the last 4 days, I’m pretty sure the BA crowd started first, but the CA bot was more efficiently written, and out preformed the other bots. I sure would love to see the logs for myself.

  412. Mot Normalt
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    True tele-connections!

  413. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA 19777
    BA 18737

    with about 8 minutes to go.

  414. Dennys McAullay
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Also votes for JunkScience stopped growing a while ago, allowing more growth to CA. It’s not unlike Pharyngula votes going to BA.

  415. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    52,200 votes is my bet

  416. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    You are missing the obvious here. Multiple positive feedbacks are causing runaway voting.

    That comment is not as ironic as it may sound.

    Otherwise, I’m not seeing any caching at all. I’d say the observed caching is due to internet providers and not from the source. BTW, I started seeing surges in CA votes relative to BA, 24 hours ago, then BA would surge back. As I said, multiple positive feedbacks.

  417. Robinson
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    They do state on the page that:

    RESULTS ARE NOT FINAL UNTIL WINNERS ARE ANNOUNCED! Each poll is checked during the voting and after polls close for excessive voting from individual machines. If excess voting is found it is noted and the votes are removed.

    .

    So the final result might not reflect the final score, so to speak. I do hope that bot-voting hasn’t resulted in CA doing so well (I’ve personally voted once a day since I first read about it). It would go against the spirit of this blog more than anything else I think.

  418. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My bad again. CA just passed 20,000.

    Predicting the future is hard.

  419. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    dang, 500 votes in a minute. Its a hurry cane of votes

  420. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    20,000!

  421. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, you went over 20,000

  422. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Larry said:

    As I said, Steve’s prediction of a total of over 50,000 has already happened, but unless something changes, it’s unlikely CA will make it to 20,000, and almost impossible for BA to do so.

    To my delight, you were mistaken :)
    CA 20098
    BA 18806

    5 minutes to go.

  423. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    2007, the year that saw global warming alarmism reach a peak, the year when “denier” was used to lump skeptics of global warming together with Holocaust deniers, and the year when Al Gore won the Nobel Prize and an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth, is ending with Climate Audit winning the 2007 weblog award for “Best Science Blog,” in the process crushing last year’s winning warmists and no-show RealClimate.

    Let me be the first to say it: “BACKLASH!”

    Also, congratulations Steve, it’s well deserved recognition!

  424. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m calling it for CA.

  425. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA 20118
    BA 18844

    with 3 minutes to go.

    Fingers crossed, but congratulations to Steve McIntyre and you guys at Climate Audit.

  426. tpguydk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #398 yeah i’m a flaming liberal too…but I think steve’s in the right about this and Mann et al are not..

  427. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Unbelievable, the kind of filth coming from Phar: Denialist Idiots

  428. Jason C
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #373 made a point.
    Even if a bot voted for you you can still claim that a climate blog was oppressed by haters as removed votes based on logs will always be under doubt.
    Weblogz should make the script safe server-side or witness what just happened.

    Regards.

  429. Bill
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Good show, Steve – and also good to see you’re already “moving on.”

  430. cbone
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    ITS OVER!

    Final, unoffical, tally:

    CA:20,131
    BA:18,894

  431. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    And CA (unofficially) wins! By 1200 votes. Whee!

  432. Ivan
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Victory!

  433. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The fat lady is singing! It’s a beatles song: Here Comes the Sun, here comes the sun and I say, it’s alright. Little darling , it’s been a long cold lonely winter!!!!!

  434. MrPete
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    ok, this is VERY strange.

    CA stopped at 20131.
    BA continues to climb. I saw 18897… then 18902, 18903, 18904…

    something is leaking?!!

  435. Joel McDade
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Congratulations Steve.

    Now, where’s the beer you promised?

    You did promise, right?

  436. Bob Thompson
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Congratulations!! Steve’s the winner by over 1200 votes

  437. Dennys McAullay
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Fine. Enough ego trip, let’s go back to science.

  438. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well this is interesting polls have been closed now for 3 minutes and BA STILL has votes coming in about 1 every 10 seconds like clock work, now that’s a bit for ya! It some how is keeping the session open pretty nice.

  439. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    So how long will it take for the chad-counting? I want to order my dress for the inaugural ball!

  440. The Fat Lady
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s oooooverrrrrrrr
    It’s oooooverrrrrr
    It’s ooooooooverrrrrrr

  441. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    432

    There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They’re called scientists. Then there are the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt. They lack perspective. They ignore everything that doesn’t fit their search criterion, and of course, they’re focused only on putrescence. They aren’t scientists, they’re more like rats.

    A little testy, are we?

  442. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Ok everybody, lets get back to work, shows over.

    Preliminary congratulations to Steve and the entire CA community, pending adjustment of the “raw” data. ;-)

  443. Jason C
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #439 The blog voting is still open: http://2007.weblogawards.org/get_poll.php?poll_id=117 .
    Their coding for the poll script is worse than cr4p. It’s pathetically lame.

    PS: They should shoot their coders.

  444. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    443, I just noticed that. Either their clock is way off, or they have some very strange database dynamics. We need to keep refreshing until the numbers stop changing.

  445. Ivan
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s unbelievable, BA continue receiving votes after time elapsed…CA remains at 20131. What’s going on?

  446. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My guess the there is a macro going it opened 50-100 screens and is now doing the voting the macro to vote, is you wanted any more oblivious proof of a bot at work just continue to watch BA’s count go up, TURN YOUR BOT OFF!

    That’s funny!

  447. Mike
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #432 – Agreed. Its a pretty dumb award, but he sure got worked up about it. I bet he’s lots of fun in class.

  448. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Uhh, guys. That’s correct. CA is frozen at 20,132, and BA keeps clicking up. This is starting to look like not a glitch.

  449. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Congratulations Steve!

    Hopefully all of the Climate Audit regulars will post at Bad Astronomy and congratulate them on a great and fun contest.

  450. Robert Dennis
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Kristen Byrnes posted a nice note on the BA blog at the close of the voting. Her decency and sense of perspective are in marked contrast to PZ Myers’s comments on the same thread.

  451. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Congratulations Steve – well deserved.

  452. Robinson
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Don’t panic Larry, it’s caching behaviour ;)

  453. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 3:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    OK. CA just clicked up. But when is this going to end?

  454. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    MOSH!!!! lol, can we talk about the ice melting and solar power….

    “I’m wondering if the poll taking database system itself is introducing some lags”
    I was thinking that the entire time. It depends on the type of data storage they use (it could be flat files, right?) and how often they do a query on it and how their voting software itself interacts with it. And traffic levels and blah blah blah. Whatever.

    All, we’re just often commenting on the possibilities. Is it possible it’s normal? Is it possible something strange is going on? Give the people guessing at causes a break. You can bring up a point without believing it yourself, as a matter of discussion, too. “It could rain tomorrow” doesn’t mean I think it will. Not everyone here is as even-handed or open-minded as everyone else, too. Chill out, this is a lighthearted change of pace.

    Proxy war indeed.

    I think it’s just the way the system happens to be working, myself. Bursty.

    Something Anthony said:

    “Benthic Bacteria Emit Noxious Gases”
    Spencer sent that to Limbaugh and he misinterpreted it as real (until Spencer probably got ahold of RL during the break and said no no no I sent that to you telling you it was a hoax (something like ‘I find it hard to think somebody went to all that trouble for a hoax’ which RL took as being ‘it has to be real because nobody would go to all that trouble’ It should have been “This is a hoax, and I find it hard anyone would go to all this trouble for one!”) So that’s just sometimes how things get “usufruct up”

  455. Robert Dennis
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Fudge, I messed up the link.

    Link

  456. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA has been going up as well. The votes are still tallying. The 1200 vote lead seems to be holding.

  457. Ivan
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    On the main page it was already announced that polls were closed. But numbers keep changing.

  458. Will C.
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA now at 20242, so we’re still climbing too.

    WOOHOO!!

  459. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    None of the other categories are continuing to count up. Just science.

  460. TerryB
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    To all at CA (again -I first posted this on the wrong thread,what a div!)

    10.20pm UK time and its looking close now – but I think you might just pip it.

    I’ve been a non-contributing lurker here for ages now and most who’ve contributed – whatever side they’re on – should be congratulated for having an open, honest exchange of views to the benefit of science.

    Not quite the Nobel that Gore-Al (Jor El) got, but still, well deserved.

    Lets hope this makes Steve’s excellent work become more prominent and helps bring about more honest and diligent research when undertaking poxy – sorry, proxy – reconstructions with fancy al-gore-rithms. Sorry, couldn’t resist that.

    Whatever the final result, well done.

  461. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 459. Somewheres here somebody analyzed the problem as a client side flash cache.

    So when I dumped my cache I had no lag.

    Now, about the Ice, solar power, and homebuilt geothermal units.

    Hot rocks r us.

  462. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It could be that it comes from various ISPs caching some page updates and their eventually being released with datestamps indicating they are valid. Much like the situation with Military ballots in Florida in the US 2000 Presidential Election.

    Of course we could start a conspiracy theory that it comes from ChiCom operatives who intercept messages to the US and search them for illegal contents.

  463. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I get it. These are all the absentee votes.

  464. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    If you want homebuilt geothermal, better plan on finding a titanium heat exchanger at some surplus yard, and plan on cleaning the scale out of it regularly. Oh, and you’d better live in geyser country, too.

  465. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Why does WA remind me of King county?

  466. pk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just voted on one that I hadn’t previously voted on and the votes went up by one. They must be certifying the votes based on the date/time stamp in the database.

  467. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The late votes are proxy votes. As usual it takes time to get them updated.

  468. Judith Curry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    WOW. I’ve been following the weblog contest, and even voted. Congrats to Steve and the Climateauditors! CA definitely deserved to win, this is by far the most dynamic science blog on the web.

    Steve: Thanks, Judith.

  469. klaus brakebusch
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Somehow this contest was funny, but too it was strange and interesting.

    I looked on the various sites in the contest involved – and their postings –
    some were openminded, some acting really reflexive (is that the right term?
    Sorry, my mother language is german. I try to explain, they reacted to ANY reference regarding doubt of human induced AGW like a pawlowian dog – BARK)

    By the way, Kristen, what did you do, that finally it did end up this way?
    Okay,better don’t tell me.

    Klaus

  470. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 5:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m not saying that anybody got robbed, but I’m just puzzled that the votes keep dribbling over an hour after it’s over. The internet isn’t that slow.

  471. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Reply


    Screaming row
    on Daily Kos about CA.

  472. Jason C
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    People their voting script is flawed and bots can still vote.
    Locking is only done client-side (in Flash) but the polls are still opened to low-level voting.

    http://2007.weblogawards.org/get_poll.php?poll_id=117 -> Voting still open.

  473. i no
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m wondering if they are allowing votes for people who voted previously and are late. I just voted for best online community at 6:22 EST. The page was fresh, I voted before, nothing else is letting me.

  474. IL
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 5:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    As a professional scientist I also heartily congratulate Steve and the many excellent contributers. I hope the final announcement will reflect the final poll position – thoroughly deserved in my view. I wish more scientists would look at what is done here and respond like Judith Curry and interact in a mature, dare I say scientific way, rather than the extreme and hateful vitriol characterized by Myers et al.
    Long may you help keep climate science honest Steve.

  475. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    477, that’s really interesting. Maybe somebody needs to unplug the network cable from the server?

  476. Bob Koss
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    They must still be count the absentee ballots.

  477. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 6:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s still clicking up. 5 votes at a time. I don’t understand. Are these the slow electrons arriving from Novosibirsk?

  478. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    481. I put a T in every vote I cast. There are no absent ts.

    “will pun for money”

  479. Leonidas Lakedaimonian
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just saw the most impressive poll rigging I ever saw : BA just jumped 1400 rows and came just a hairsplit ahed of CA. And the poll has been over for hours now.

  480. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Judith Curry rocks! Nice post over there on Phar.

    Numbers just a bit ago:
    CA: 20,631
    BA: 19,219

    Just refreshed:
    CA: 20,632
    BA: 20,673

    WTF? I can see them going down if votes are considered bogus, but going up more than 1400 within minutes? (actually, it’s pretty much a tie at 37.5/37.6%) So far, BA keeps going up 1 every refresh, CA is not moving. Something is weird. I think there is a back-door; or did they throw out votes they should have kept and addthem back? WTF. Seems bogus.

    Anyway, the “Best Blog” is 24,908. The next closest is at 7,544, so both CA and BA beat them resoundingly. OTher than that, well yeah.

    We already knew Steve was going to be gracious regardless.

  481. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 479. Thanks IL.

    I think working scientists like Dr curry are at a disadvantage in the blogosphere.
    When they show up its a Many on 1 fight. Sometimes with variable civility ( Dr Curry is
    ALWAYS civil, but others are more petulant, as is their right )on both sides.

    Anyway, it would be interesting to construct a discussion paradigm where the working
    scientist could actually repond to intellegent questions.. I’ll give you an Example,
    when I see Willis asking DR Juckes questions I want everyone to shut up and watch

  482. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    We should wait until the winners are annouced. But come on now, regardless if the poll is bogus or not, or meaningful or not, or important or not, or the greatest thing in the known universe; how does a blog jump 1400 votes, hours after the voting is over?

    I always thought it was just the way the voting was going, but that was when it was open. Now that it’s closed, I am not so able to think it’s just by chance…..

    I wonder what’s going on.

  483. mccall
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hmmm, looks like it’s a repeat of WA state 2004 recount… the count goes until the counters decide.

  484. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Unbelievable, BA has just past CA in votes. It’s about 50 votes ahead.

  485. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just updated, and BA is now ahead of CA, 20684/20632. There’s some monkey business going on. This was supposed to be over 3 1/2 hours ago, and the votes kept coming in. I don’t believe that there were that many votes sitting in routers for that long. I’m just not buying it.

    If that’s how they want to play…

  486. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    489, That’s what I said. Welcome to King county. Oh, looky there! Another box of uncounted ballots!

  487. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Wait until the results are announced, it may be a technical error or something. I for one would like to know how it can jump so much in so short a time, but perhaps we’ll get the same thing happening again the other way, or a correction, or ? I would like at least an explanation of this in any case, very odd.

  488. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think it more likely someone has found a way around their ballot closure deadline. I expect the Weblog site will revise BA’s numbers down.

  489. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I for one have contacted the site asking for an explanation. Does anyone have the figures as at the exact time the poll was declared closed?

  490. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    493, 494, that’s the thing. If this happened when voting was active, it could be a glitch. 3.5 hours after??? That’s no glitch. It’s an exploit.

  491. Rick Ballard
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There is a message board going and the administrator has promised to “look into it”. Cached pages my foot.

  492. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Paul, the numbers Steve put up in the “left/right” thread are pretty close.

  493. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The sites administrator said about why votes continued after the deadline,

    ‘Cached pages, perhaps?

    We’re looking into it. ‘

  494. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Imagine that. The numbers aren’t increasing any more. Just like in King county.

  495. Bernie
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Anybody still think the West Florida fiasco in 2000 was an accident?

  496. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    What West Florida fiasco? If you want monkey business, try WA state governor, 2004. There’s a case study in monkey business.

  497. Joel McDade
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Just guessing, SD of voting today was about 300-500. After hours (AH) we had a 4-6 sigma event?

  498. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I have a screen capture right after the Polls closed at 2:00 pm Las Vegas time that showed CA ahead and the latest one that shows CA behind and an addition of almost 2,000 votes for BA.

  499. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 7:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    BA vote is still going up.

  500. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    cached pages pages with altered time stamps?

  501. reverted
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    People need to just calm down. During the open-voting period, it was CA’s votes that looked rather suspiciously strange—or, has everyone already forgotten about the more-than-a-thousand-votes jumps in just a couple of minutes? (And, none of us has any idea how long those votes may have been sitting in a queue before being processed either.)

    I was tracking the data from about 10am through 3pm, and I saw one 15min period that had 1709 votes for CA [about 114votes/min], which was immediately followed by a 15min period of only 61 votes [about 4votes/min]. Don’t tell me that’s not as strange as this post-closed-polls behavior.

    (And, all this weirdly erratic CA-vote behavior was happening while BAB’s votes were coming in at a pretty stable stream of about 25votes/min [usually varying between 20 and 30votes/min].)

    The bottom line is this: just wait for the official announcement. Stop with the conspiracy theories, especially when you don’t even have the final results. (For all we know, both CA’s and BAB’s vote-counts might be chopped back to under 10k, due to ballot-box stuffing. Who knows. Be patient; wait.)

  502. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Votes are still trickling in … over four hours after the cutoff …

  503. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    507, and you see no distinction between votes being counted before voting closes, and votes being counted 3 and 4 hours after voting closes? King county elections has a job for you.

  504. Jan Pompe
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m wondering how in the past hour some 3 hours after voting has closed BA pulled ahead from near 1500 behind.

  505. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Most of the jump occurred after 6:34 PM EST.

    EST…………..CA……….BA……Delta
    3:59 PM …18828….17294…1534
    4:44 PM …19259….17798…1461
    4:44 PM …19735….18575…1160
    4:53 PM …19783….18755…1028
    5:03 PM …20131….18907…1224
    5:17 PM …20242….18983…1259
    5:31 PM …20247….19060…1187
    5:54 PM …20555….19144…1411
    6:22 PM …20613….19175…1438
    6:34 PM …20615….19181…1434
    8:20 PM …20634….20681….-47

  506. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    EST…………..CA……….BA……Delta
    (The previous post had a typo. The first 4:44 PM should have been 4:16 PM).

    3:59 PM …18828….17294…1534
    4:16 PM …19259….17798…1461
    4:44 PM …19735….18575…1160
    4:53 PM …19783….18755…1028
    5:03 PM …20131….18907…1224
    5:17 PM …20242….18983…1259
    5:31 PM …20247….19060…1187
    5:54 PM …20555….19144…1411
    6:22 PM …20613….19175…1438
    6:34 PM …20615….19181…1434
    8:20 PM …20634….20681….-47

  507. reverted
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Ok, then consider this:

    SciGuy’s vote-count jumped by more than 440 after the polls closed, too.

    And, even CA’s count jumped by more than 100 shortly after polls closed, and then suddenly by more than 300 quite awhile later.

    BAB’s count isn’t the only one that’s jumped around strangely after polls closed. It just happens to be the largest single jump. *shrug*

  508. Larry
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Ok. That makes me feel better that it’s all hosed up all around. No problem…

  509. reverted
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hehe. I’m not trying to make anyone feel either better or worse. I’m just trying to point-out that there’s no reason to get all worked-up over this, especially when we don’t even have officially final results. (And, besides… c’mon! It’s a stupid internet poll!)

    Would you feel any different about these results if a couple hundred more votes for CA were suddenly “discovered in the queue”, thereby putting it back in the lead?

    If so, then why? It still wouldn’t be the final official tally. And, it’s still just an internet poll.

    (We have no idea what their technical infrastructure is, how it works, etc. It’s hard to say for certain if it’s “hosed” or not without knowing quite a bit about it, regardless of external appearances.)

  510. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Reverted: so which horse are you rooting for in the home stretch?

  511. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CA 20638
    BA 20683

    Weird.

  512. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I recieved emails from 2 friends in Australia who said they voted 3 – 4 hours after polls closed and the totals still went up. I voted in 2 other categories a few minutes ago and kept track of the numbers. We’ll see what’s up after they announce the results.

  513. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 9:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Ok so just to finalize, CA win at pole closing with a 1000 vote lead. BA continues to get a steady stream of votes at an almost level rate of votes for the next 4 to 5 hours until BA gets exact 55 votes ahead of the winner then mysteriously stops. I PROMISE THERE IS BOT INVOLVED.

    If Climate Audit is not declared the winner weblogawards.org should just shut their doors right now because their voting system is a joke.

  514. MrPete
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Tech support confirms:

    * Cached flash “voting tool” still gets “votes” in — and they show up. BUT they will not be counted.
    * They are adamant that post-close votes will not count
    * They’re still working on validating results

    I’m sure they’ve learned a few lessons for next year!

  515. Gary
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The vote total controversy just might get a few more folks to look at CA – a far more important result than ‘winning.’

  516. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    From http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog-1.php

    “Each poll is checked during the voting and after polls close for excessive voting from individual machines. If excess voting is found it is noted and the votes are removed.”

    My reading of that is that votes cast after polls close may be recorded, but will be removed from the final tally. That should put CA back in front by over 1200 votes.

  517. Doug
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Hey, Gore lost a screwed up election and look what it did for him.

  518. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve just come back from squash league. When I left, the polls were closed and we were 1400 votes in front. Now we’re 50 votes behind. Sort of like a MWP temperature reconstruction.

  519. mjrod
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I hope this doesn’t turn into a supreme court case.

  520. rk
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Regardless of who wins, I think this is significant. 20K votes is way more than very famous blogs got in their respective categories. The fact that blogs that were anti-CA referred people to vote against CA and still it is a photo-finish. (yes, I know that pro-CA blogs referred too)

    If the #’s hold up, it is a good moment for CA/Steve Mc. (ok, not as good as the the GISS correction or the Barton hearings, but hey)

    Congrat’s to everyone on this blog.

  521. Jim B
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Oh wouldn’t that be funny.

    Imagine if the mysterious “extra votes” that occurred after the vote was closed traced back to Nasa’s Goddard Institute through the IP??

  522. Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    After reading the comment #512 with the numbers, I probably won’t believe an explanation of the weird evolution that assumes that all numbers are refreshed simultaneously and everything is clean.

    It’s not just the delta that is changing weirdly. More importantly, the ratio of rates of votes is just completely crazy. For example, between 6.34pm and 8.20pm, CA receives less than 20 votes while BA receives about 1500.

    The ratio is about 75. There can be groups of people that vote after an e-mail or a web comment. But I just find it unlikely that all these people are so synchronized that every interval has a pretty clear winner, by orders of magnitude.

    There’s no proof but it is hard to assign too much importance to such data.

  523. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve McIntyre wrote: “I’ve just come back from squash league.”

    At your age? I’m surprised you made it back alive.

    Steve: As of yesterday, I’m eligible for 60 and over tournaments.

  524. dirac angestun
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Then many happy returns as of yesterday.

  525. JS
    Posted Nov 8, 2007 at 11:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Comment of interest at the Weblog Award Forum:

    “I think we need a different outfit to run weblog awards. None of the Las Vegas News outlets are reporting on this so obviously your PR rep stinks. Not only that but the news page for this for the Weblog Awards links to a posting by Deltoid asking people to vote for Bad Astronomy. That’s utter incompetence for people who are supposed to be running an objective contest. Now we see that the operators of this award contest (supposedly for fun baaaaaaaahahahaha) have everyone waiting up all night waiting for results because the preliminary results are skewed by some incompetent programmer who forgot to turn the machines off when the polls close.”

  526. Jim B
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 12:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Seriously though they should release the IP’s of the people or organizations who gamed the system. I for one would like to know who they are.

  527. Roger Dueck
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 12:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    529 No kidding! My squash career ended decades ago!

  528. Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    For what it’s worth, someone at BA wrote:

    Mike on 08 Nov 2007 at 11:04 pm

    The site administrator said that they did not program the site to stop counting votes after the polls closed but that the votes that came in after 2 PM Vegas time would be corrected back. CA won according to the media outlet at the convention where the results were announced live.

    I wouldn’t trust any numbers until the official count comes out.

  529. reverted
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 12:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #516: I don’t especially care which “horse” …uh… ‘wins’. Neither outcome affects my life at all. (And, the same goes for almost everyone else here, as well as over at BAB and Phar.)

  530. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 12:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I can still vote! See my post at http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

    It appears Firefox has the ability to vote where IE doesn’t.

  531. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Wotdahell happened??? Went to bed last nite when the poll was closed and CA was 1200 points in front of BA? Some points leaked in after the poll was closed, but now way BA could have gotten 1500 points extra legally and CA almost nothing. 2000 elections springs to mind. I wanna recount!

  532. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 4:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    >> Jumps in the poll is not on their computer it’s actually on yours, that’s why it can be hacked in the first place, it’s a client side system.

    Jim B, Of course, browsers cache as well, but that doesn’t mean that the server isn’t cached. In my post where I was seeing the total votes not change for 5 minutes, I was doing a Shift-refresh, which certainly avoids local cache and requests a new page from the server. You’re confused if you think that client side caching, or flash is at all related to “why it can be hacked”. The flash is only animating the poll results client side. The actual voting was just a radio button post back.

    I’m not saying that poll results were not hacked, but I think it has nothing to do with flash. One way to hack the results would be to put a vote submittal in the page load of a high volume site. That way, everyone who simply viewed Daily Kos or Malkin would vote without knowing it. That’s why internet polls are silly.

  533. Rui Sousa
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Internet voting is the least secure system I know.

    I would dismisse the caching theory, unless some very bad rpograming is on the server side. Like considering client time instead of server time to determine if the vote was placed before closig time, all you have to do to hack the voting would be change my PC time and place one vote for each competitin day.

    I may be that the server registers votes in queues that are processed over time, and the display results are outdated by hours, or even days. But for the amount of votes in question I would say that would be out of proportion.

    Monday will tell.

  534. MrPete
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Stats people, how about solving a fun problem?
    Seems to me we have expertise on tap here for an interesting exercise in computer fraud forensics.
    PLEASE NOTE: this is for fun. Yes, I care about the truth. I don’t honestly care how the final tally turns out — the goal of better publicity is already achieved!
    THE SETUP
    Suppose you had a time series of data — votes from potentially related data sources (a computer cluster for example). You have time of day and exact sources. You suspect some of the sources may be controlled in an automated way, to generate votes for a (set of) targets.
    A simplified version (with no variance)… here are times, sources, targets:
    0, x1, a
    6, x2, a
    10, y1, b
    12, y2, a
    18, x3, a
    20, x4, b
    etc…
    In this case, I’ve created a pattern with 6 and 10 second voting intervals, and no variation. In the real (messy) data set, I’m sure there is significant variability in the patterns, simply due to internet/computer delays. Even if nobody programmed in any sophistication of random timing.
    QUESTION
    How would you analyze the data set to tease out any fraud, with good confidence?
    I’m guessing that a graph of vote intervals over time, possibly accompanied by fourier analysis, might be informative.
    I’m interested in comments on the problem, particularly from our statistics experts!

  535. JerryB
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    At the moment, the announcement of winners at http://2007.weblogawards.org/
    mentions two categories in which the winners are not yet determined.
    Best science blog is one of those two.

  536. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    >> I would dismisse the caching theory, unless some very bad rpograming is on the server side.

    As I’ve explained, caching is not a theory, it’s a fact. I’m confused as to what you have observed that you feel is strange and needs explaining.

    >> Like considering client time instead of server time to determine if the vote was placed before closig time, all you have to do to hack the voting would be change my PC time and place one vote for each competitin day.

    Client time is inconceivable. It doesn’t look like they had a way of implementing “closing time”. They just took the link down, then realized the page was still there. They can always get the result at closing time with a SQL where clause.

    >> I[t] may be that the server registers votes in queues that are processed over time, and the display results are outdated by hours, or even days. But for the amount of votes in question I would say that would be out of proportion.

    Also inconceivable. There is absolutely no reason to make up obscure theories like this.

    Mr Pete,

    Even if there was a web farm, the time recorded would be the database server time, so there is no problem with that. There is no reason to resort to statistics to determine something which is discoverable by other more direct means.

  537. pk
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    mentions two categories in which the winners are not yet determined.

    It’s kind of funny that the two categories are technology and science.

  538. L Nettles
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The vote page currently shows BA ahead of CA. 20683 to 20638

  539. Jason C
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    From SEO blog I read: Security Audit Of WLA.
    It appears their security was a smoke wall! … so lame

  540. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 8:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hanging chads and everything. They said that the contest would be fun, but who’d have expected this much fun. The link in #546 is interesting. My audit instincts suggest to me that the same mechanism used in the post-closing voting was probably being used pre-closing. In this respect, the asymmetry between CA and BA post-closing votes (1400+ votes) is shall-we-say statistically significant.

  541. Iain
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #547, “post closing votes”

    BA=1794, CA=507, SciGuy=444, all others in single digits.

    As you say, “statistically significant”

  542. Bob Koss
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Al Fin has some complimentary things to say regarding Steve and the awards.

  543. Bernie
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 9:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The smart hacker would have voted for both sides but weighted it in the direction of their preferred site, thereby partially obscuring their tracks. That way it would look like both sides were guilty, but one was more efficient than the other.

  544. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 9:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Wasn’t it Gore who wanted to do elections online? Using his innertube thingy? He’d have still lost.

  545. Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 9:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It looks like we won’t know the official winner until Monday. From the award website.

    RESULTS ARE NOT FINAL FOR THIS POLL! This poll is still being checked for excessive voting from individual machines. If excess voting is found it will be noted and the votes will be removed. The winner should be announced Monday.

  546. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

    If nothing else, this has been a really interesting case study in online security. It doesn’t look like they took more than token steps against a hack. And with the front door wide open, and the screen door missing the screen, they just helped themselves.

    I’ll remember this the next time I have to worry about kiddies. The whole internet setup is just begging for a breakin. Looking at the link in 546, it was just too easy.

  547. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re: 534, 552:

    According to the awards forum admin:

    The announcement will be tonight, at the expo in Vegas. In just about an hour, in fact.

    The technology category has been giving us fits, and we might not announce a winner in that one, until certain issues are resolved. But whether we announce a winner tonight or not, the winner will be the real winner, with the most real votes before the polls closed. You can be sure of that.

    So combined with this:

    CA won according to the media outlet at the convention where the results were announced live.

    it’s a pretty positive sign

  548. MrPete
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Bernie – exactly. I suspect the poll managers are pretty upset, and are digging hard into the issue. It never feels good to be hacked.

    My suggestion for analysis of voting patterns is based on the idea that those who gamed the system simulated use of a large set of machines, all behind a small number of IP addresses. The hard part would be to distinguish 1000 legitimate votes from behind the IBM NAT’d firewall, and 1000 fraudulent votes from behind the XYZ.com NAT’d firewall.

  549. Jeremy Friesen
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Only science and technology blog results have yet to be determined. Figures, eh? lol

  550. Bernie
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I think they, the organizers, have to look at a number of the other voting categories as well. A quick look at the numbers for Fark.com (the best online community site) suggests similar issues – given that Fark received more votes than any other site in the competition. The pattern of votes across all the comptitions certainly suggests that a few of the competitions received inordinate attention and the attention of hackers..

  551. Bill F
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There was a planter’s peanuts contest for the “nuttiest” college fanbase a couple of years ago. Several different schools got their hands on a custom written hack that could be set to run all day on a computer. Once it was distributed to enough people, the results were actually pretty amazing. There were literally thousands of votes per hour being registered, and Planters eventually took the poll down because it was killing the server with all the hack traffic. I suspected that the same thing was happening to the awards page when their server got bogged down at the end there.

  552. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Gee. Over at Phary, PZ says (in hello stan palmer) about Steve’s answer to the FAQ question “Does your work disprove global warming?” this way:

    That isn’t a position. That’s obfuscatory bafflegab calculated to encourage deniability.

    And of course refers to CA people over there with the nice moniker of “Rats with their moldy flecks of rotting garbage.”

    Feel the love!

  553. Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s sad that there people like this . This was posted by someone at the BA site:

    # Max Faginon 12 Dec 2006 at 8:26 am

    Go to your college/school/library computer lab, open the weblog awards and vote for BA on each one! I have got at least 20 votes that way!

  554. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    557, I think they have other problems, as well. The results for best blog were pretty lopsided, and the “winner” was a rather lame, strange blog that nobody’s ever heard of.

  555. Bernie
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Larry:
    See #557. I was interested in whether anybody had heard of Fark. The gap between them and Daily Kos is remarkable to say the least.

  556. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 1:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This is semi-hilarious: Steve closed the “left/right” thread to comments, and then some ‘bot added a comment after the close. How could that possibly happen?

  557. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Fark’s a major site. They’re big. That doesn’t surprise me in the least. They have legions of farkers. IIRC, they were kinda like DIGG.

  558. StuartR
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Congratulations to both CA and BA. the Weblog Award for Science is offically tied for first place. Both get 20,000 votes.

  559. Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    @ 563
    The final comment on the Left/Right thread is a trackback from a scraper site. (That is, a site that does nothing but copy content) It’s normal for trackbacks to appear even if comments close. However, because scraper sites are basically sites that copy bits of content and drop links to later sell advertising, it should probably be deleted. It’s good policy to only post trackbacks from blogs with original content and delete the rest.

  560. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Sez who? Is that official?

  561. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    566, but it was rather ironic, seeing what happened to WA after they “closed”.

  562. BarryW
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re 567

    That’s what it says on the website. My guess is that the voting was so badly hacked that they couldn’t unravel the good votes from the bad for both sites, so they declared it a tie. “Chad” would be proud.

  563. StuartR
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It now says both blogs agree to a tie at the top of the Best Science Blog page. Best result after all this dubious confusion I reckon.

  564. L Nettles
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The tie breaker should be which site has posted the most science since the end of the count.

  565. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    But that means there’s no consensus! We can’t have that.

  566. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    A tie? That’s silly.

  567. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I predicted a tie.

  568. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m just glad I have a really hot looking cousin. Since a tie is like kissing your cousin.

  569. Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Is the cousin male or female?

    Since the votes at the time of closing clearly were in favour of CA a tie seems unfair and would seem to reward cheating.

  570. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve agreed to it. So be it. I guess that means Steve is more like Nixon than Gore.

  571. Bernie
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I agree with Kristen, it is silly but then most here realized the whole voting thing was somewhat silly. What it helped do is drive traffic and demonstrate the fair mindedness of some and the small mindedness of others – you know who you are. So I vote “silly, but not pointless”.

  572. Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 2:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s officially a tie and now I’m concerned about the quantum physics aspect of this.

    You’ve got a pro-science site (CA) combined with an anti-antiscience site (BA), doesn’t that mean they’ll both go into a cat state? Or will they simply obliterate each other in a burst of radiant energy?

    Might be wise to wear safety goggles when you visit.

  573. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 576. Are you hitting on me dude?

    ( good one, I was wondering if anyone was going to fling that back )

    Did sadlov bribe you to do that?

  574. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This will be an intersting test.

    Since it is a tie both sites lay claim to science blog of the year.

    Both sites have a traffic pattern PRIOR to the blog awards.

    They tied.

    Which blog will gain more traction with new users?

    that is the tie breaker.

    6 months down the road who has a bigger pagehits anomaly.

    Ah yes, see if CA page hits can create a hockey stick

  575. Rick Ballard
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I would suggest a duel of wits as a method of resolution but the intrinsic unfairness of the matchup precludes the possibility.

    BTW – a belated Happy Birthday, Steve. May you dominate the 60 and over division for a full decade.

  576. bernarda
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Several hours ago the polls closed and the results gave Bad Astronomy winning by a few dozen votes. Both of you had between 6000 and 7000 votes.

    Now Webblogs lists 20,000 about for each. Why does Webblogs want you to win?

  577. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    583, you obviously weren’t watching. That’s not what happened.

  578. L Nettles
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Bernarda wrote:

    Several hours ago the polls closed and the results gave Bad Astronomy winning by a few dozen votes. Both of you had between 6000 and 7000 votes.

    Now Webblogs lists 20,000 about for each. Why does Webblogs want you to win?

    Huh? On what planet did that happen?

  579. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 3:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re: #581 Steven,

    Ah yes, see if CA page hits can create a hockey stick

    Actually I was just calculating the monthly output of new pages by Steve and noticed that judging by the starting page for each month and calculating the difference, the page production figures by month show a distinctly HSlike shape. But then I noticed that there are a lot of missing pages in the recent months and this makes the raw figures misleading. So now I’m off to explore the jungle of “missing” page numbers to see what mysteries lie there…

  580. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 3:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Gunnar, take a look at the client javascript. It looks like it’s checking the client system’s clock time against a cookie to determine if you voted in the last 24 hours. A ten year old could hack around that.

  581. Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 3:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Mosh: No he didn’t, but worth a thought. Hitting on you? You should see my cousin! (the female variety). Now she could cause some serious warming!

  582. pk
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    bernarda,

    The polls closed yesterday at 5:00pm EST. When they closed the votes were CA ~20,200 and BA ~19,000. In the hours after closing, they went to CA ~20,634 and BA ~20,681. The organizers declared a tie and 20,000 votes for each. I’m not sure where you get the 6000 something votes.

  583. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    587, you’re kidding.

  584. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Paul,

    He’s too old for your cousin. Besides, he mixed his viagra and rogain and now he looks like Don King. LOLOLOLOL (I’ve been sooooo looking to get back at him for that data chart stunt he pulled)

  585. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Ahhh. I’m besieged on all sides by smart alecks. Kristen nice to see you again. How is the college
    selection going?

  586. Kristen Byrnes
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Still nothing from Greece (sigh) Not that I’ve had much time with 6 hrs of homework per night.

  587. Jeremy
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 4:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re: #559…

    “obfuscatory bafflegab”??? Clearly qualifying what you can and cannot say is now ‘obfuscatory bafflegab’? I want a T-shirt that says, “I don’t write materials-science papers, I write obfuscatory bafflegab that take no position on superconductivity and it’s impact on mankind.”

  588. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 5:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 593. Ah greece. I loved the airport there. It was All I got to see.

    Good luck kiddo. Hey my son had to write a response to AIT the other day.
    I gave him your site and Surfacestations. He says thanks.

  589. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s a tie at 37.3% each.

    We are announcing a tie between Bad Astronomy Blog and Climate Audit, so there will be two winners in this category. Both blogs agree with this decision. We thank them both for helping resolve the issues that affected this poll as voting closed Thursday.

  590. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Kevin Aylward posted this comment in response to what I thought was a rather biased piece at Wired News.

    conservative blogs have been winning the Weblog Awards for years.

    That was true in 2005, but things have changed substantially since then. Liberal (or left leaning) sites did very, very well in 2006 – snapping up most of the political category wins. This year it was fairly balanced and the non-political folks (Post Secret and FARK) won big against political (left and right) sites.

    Coverage and links from non-political portions of the interenet are much higher in the last few years because people have seen that the contest is open, fair, and fun.

    Wired Gadget blog interviewed me at length this morning about the last minute poll issues. Expect a story this weekend.

  591. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 5:41 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I can think of a number of reasons they’d want to set both sites at 20,000 and I’ll list them in no particular order as a brainstorming thing.

    1. It seemed a fair thing to do (especially given that it was basicially a tie in the first place). I think this is the most likely, but in my best impersonation of the IPCC, I won’t give it a firm percentage.
    2. Unwinding what really happened is not possible.
    3. Unwinding what really happened is not worth the time.
    4. They themselves are responsible.
    5. Who did it is known but doesn’t need to be shared. (Or is not wanted to be shared, or doesn’t need to be shared.)
    6. It was the best way to keep their reputation.

    Regardless of the reason (and given that it’s an uncontrolled poll that is skewed on the sample (only people online can vote, but anyone online can vote, and only those that know of it and care would vote, such demographic changing in structure as the poll went along), regardless of the reason, I think it’s the best thing.

    Ever notice the both sites have initials in between AA and DA? :D

    Anywhose, congrats both BA and CA!

  592. reverted
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #576: “Since the votes at the time of closing clearly were in favour of CA a tie seems unfair and would seem to reward cheating.”

    Since we all know that there was very strange behavior for CA vote-counts *before* polls closed, there is no particularly good reason to cite what you just did as if it is a legitimate excuse for claiming a win for CA. (The fact is, we just don’t know.)

    In summary, it appears that:
    1) BOTH sides cheated by messing with the voting system;
    2) Because of this, it could conceivably be argued that NEITHER side really “deserves” to win; and, finally,
    3) All this monkey-business apparently wreaked so much havoc that they were unable to reliably discern between legitimate and bogus votes in order to announce a definite winner.

    Now, I don’t think any of the actual blog owners condoned cheating. But, the fact remains that it apparently happened on both sides.

    So, a tie seems to be the most generally satisfactory way to proceed from here. Be happy for the win, even if it is a tie. Stop griping.

    Congrats to both CA and BAB!

    (Yay @ #598, too!)

  593. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dave Dardinger, no, we have to extrapolate the missing page numbers and fill them in by pages that are there, by adjusting for the number of missing page numbers around the ones that aren’t missing. It’s quite simple to derive an algorithm from the stated description, by the way.

    But of course, to quote Jeremy: “I don’t write materials-science papers, I write obfuscatory bafflegab that take no position on superconductivity and its impact on mankind.”

  594. Steve Moore
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Stop griping.

    I would quote Lambert (“I like griping”) but we all know what happened to her.

  595. StuartR
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Or Kane “Go on. We must go on”

    My memory of Alien could be naff;)

  596. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    reverted, I think you’re jumping to conclusions on this. There are a lot of folks out there on the Internet in general, and in the blogosphere in particular, that have never been to either site, and have both the means and the will to tickle the system to change the numbers for either side. It’s fairly clear that some exploitation went on, but the only obvious strange thing (which could have been a normal artifact of how they have the voting system set up, don’t forget) was the jump of 1400 votes (rather than the removal of bad votes down). I would be surprised to find that hardly anyone, if anyone, that frequents either site would have either the means or the will to mess with the votes.

    You have to remember that up until now, many from either “side” knew of the other blogs. There are a lot of blogs out there. Once some people that are in the circles that frequent multiple blogs learned of the others, it became less of a matter of denizens that frequent the various ones on that list voting for their favorite out of x blogs they know, but that of people voting for the blog they perceived as most matching their views (and that I would say they only had the impression of what they had been told or had only seen on the surface). It changed the dynamic so much, the latter stages were nothing the same as the earlier.

    That said, having read Steve for quite a while, and seeing the general way that Phil acted and what he wrote, I would say that neither of the two did OR condoned any cheating. Read what they both write, and take both at face value. I would also say the majority of regulars at either (or both) sites would do things like that. I myself don’t think this is a case of “one blog cheated better than the other” but rather a case of outsiders deciding to influence things “their way”. How that impacted things overall? I don’t think anyone knows, nor do I think it’s worth trying to find out.

    I believe the people that ran the poll didn’t have an idea anything like this would happen, and that it’s better to just give it a tie and drop the issue as both not important, and as a messed up situation better dropped than obsessed about.

    I doubt any of the people normally on either/both blogs cheated, and I’m almost positive neither operator did. It simply wasn’t there. The only person that seems to have become upset at this at all is, well, you can tell whom it was.

  597. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    That should have been that up until now, many didn’t even know of the other blogs on the list.

  598. windansea
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    3) All this monkey-business apparently wreaked so much havoc that they were unable to reliably discern between legitimate and bogus votes in order to announce a definite winner.

    hey the guys who design the smartest vote bots deserve to win the best science blog

    just kidding :)

  599. windansea
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I believe the people that ran the poll didn’t have an idea anything like this would happen

    then they are naive, cheating web polls is to the web as prostitution is to gainfull employment

  600. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    while the idea of a tie had been presented by third parties, I proposed an agreed tie to Plait last night and then we both presented the idea to relieved Weblog Awards organizers today. (They still have an outstanding brawl in the Techonology Blog category). The purpose of the contest was to be fun and to draw attention to blogs; it accomplished that. Yes, CA was 1400ahead at 5 pm and yes, bots hacked into the system after 5 pm and altered the votes in favor of BA. Those votes would probably be easy to deal with. But once you started down that road, you’d have to recognize that bots had been active in the votes prior to 5 pm. Sorting those out would be a herculean task for the organizers, and, in my opinion, an unreasonable burden for them given the purpose and scope of the contest. Based on post-closing bot activity, I could guess that pre-closing bot activity would be proportional to post-closing bot activity where the proportion was known but it’s just a guess.

    We can take satisfaction in our award and I’ll be proud to display the logo. But readers should also recognize that it doesn’t do CA any harm if Phil Plait also has an awards tag.

  601. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 6:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m sure that for some, it wasn’t who should win, but the sheer challenge of pulling it off. And from what I’ve seen of the code, they took no precautions. They were asking for this. No, they were begging on bended knee.

  602. John S
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    # 599

    You left out one other possibility. Someone at Weblog Awards cheated and was caught then a tie was offered to quiet things down. I watched the voting all day yesterday. Nothing seemed inconsistent with the tallies throughout the day to me. Every time a new blog or radio talk show endorsed either side, the numbers jumped for that side, I can understand the numbers jumping by hundreds or thousands in just one or two minutes after a blog was endorsed by a radio show. Communication with the Weblog Awards server was direct, so when you voted the tally went up by 1. That is why there was no caching of large numbers of votes. All you had to do was use a different link (ie: the one at Anthony Watts site or the one at CA) to look at the tallies and you got the fresh tally. What was really telling was when the administrators of the Weblog Awards Forum said they were aware that voting was still occuring within an hour of the polls closing, then 2 hours and 20 minutes later the tally for BA jumped by over 1400 votes in less than one minute. It wasn’t until shortly after that when the numbers quit rising. That’s not a bot or a cache problem, it is someone at Weblog Awards fixing the numbers. I would give long odds that the person there was found out and rather than admitting to what happened, the awards people gave first place to both blogs in the hopes that things would quiet down. They may even have used the arm twister “both sides were cheating” to help close the deal. But then, neither CA or BA has commented on the events leading up to or the details of the deal they agreed to yet so we cannot be sure until we hear from them.


    Steve:
    I don;t think that this hypothesis makes any sense. Weblog Awards said:

    Someone figured out how to cache a poll and make it keep voting after the poll had been turned off for everyone else. Sean was eventually able to fix that but it took several hours so one (or more) people had access to voting while everyone else was shut out.

    Yeah, they had a problem with their set up bu there’s no reason to think that it was intentional/

  603. StuartR
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Could I add my two penneth and say that clearly there was a “political” modification going on. It seems ist was an external phenomenon to both CA and BA sites, and the best thing you could say it was probably prompted by the emnity that CA provokes. Personally as a CA follower/lurker who is a programmer (but assiduosly ducked any responsibility for interjecting on the python/fortran script stuff, too much like extra hard work, hows that going?), I thought it it might be fun to help see Steve coming third at least .

    Maybe the Pharyngula should have won :)

  604. John S
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    … and Steve spoke as I typed.

  605. StuartR
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    BTW I meant I gave grand total of 8 votes from home and work.

  606. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Someone figured out how to cache a poll and make it keep voting after the poll had been turned off for everyone else.

    I’m trying to make some sense out of just exactly what it means to “cache a poll”. I think that’s a convoluted way of saying that someone intercepted their scripts and diddled them. That seems like a really funny way to say that.

  607. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 613.

    Cash a pole? I resist the urge make jokes and leave this humour to the less talented:

    Larry, Boris, Sam, sadlov: Knock yourselves senselesser.

  608. Larry
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Is Johnny Cash a pole?

  609. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE 615. I dunno.

  610. John S
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 7:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve’s note in # 609:
    “Yeah, they had a problem with their set up bu there’s no reason to think that it was intentional/”

    When their site links a blog that tells it’s readers to vote once or twice for BA (ie; cheat), I can’t trust them as far as I can throw them.

  611. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 8:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The day the nominees were announced was a good day.

  612. mccall
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 8:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Let’s try this from a legal perspective:
    did either of the blog owners leave fingerprints at a “jury tampering” crime scene?
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-plait/weblog-awards-2007-vote-_b_71762.html

  613. Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 8:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This was a graceful end to a highly entertaining race. Next year I suspect the organizers will have improved security. Meanwhile, many more people will have heard of CA and some will stop by and learn something. The only real loser is that pill of a biology prof who revealed a truly epic inability to entertain doubt. Sad really.

  614. Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 8:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    #609, #617 – You’re way off! Don’t blame them as their only problem was raw incompetence.
    Let’s say an outsider (not a reader of any of the two blogs) gamed the system with two thoughts in mind:

    1. WLA created a voting script so weak it had to be revealed so people know the real winners might not have been real.
    2. Science category was chosen as all the other sites clearly ganged up on the CA blog (regardless of its opinions which I will not question).
    And the worst thing is that even the organizers advised voting for BA against CA which is untolerable from a hacker’s point of view.

    The hacker came into play about 8 hours before end of competiton kept BA and CA close during competition but favoured CA the entire time.
    Actually their script was even worse than the hacker first imagined. It allowed voting after time elapsed and that had to be pointed out hence the final pack of 1400 votes for BA (4 hours after vote closing) came as fatality and changed the winner after closing time.
    They were cast because the hacker wanted a tie between the competitors and a draw as a final result (it was not the competitors’ mistake / problem the script was complete crap).

    There may have been other gaming the system (little league – with few votes) but only one brought real publicity to both BA and CA blogs. Take advantage of this publicity and give quality to your (new) reader base which should have grown as a result of the controversy.

    Regards, 5ubliminal

  615. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 8:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Like I said the day of the nominations was a GOOD DAY.

    how many of us expected that? Gravy and frosting after that mates. Take St. Macs lead.

    And be nice to newcomers. Moshpit is the box for the next week or so.

  616. Duane Johnson
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Congratulations Steve M.

    I posted on the BA sight last night that I felt declaring a tie would be appropriate. I’m a long-time CA lurker(seldom poster), who thinks that if Plait had more familiarity with the CA site and with the issues involved, the skepticism he shows on extraordinary science claims would cause him to view CA more favorably, if not become an actual supporter of CA. Wouldn’t it be good if that happened?

  617. Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 11:34 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dude, I voted for you as much as I could. Please keep up the good work. Skepticism is the way to true science. R10

  618. Andy
    Posted Nov 9, 2007 at 11:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Belated Happy Birthday, Steve. It appears as though it was on the 7th, which means we share it, although separated by a few years.

  619. MJW
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 2:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    As someone who knows next to nothing about web programming, I’m curious as to how fraudulent voting could be prevented. It seems like every time there’s a once-a-day web vote, someone suggests cheating by deleting the cookie that indicates when the last vote was cast. But what other way besides cookies can be used to prevent overvoting? If a previous valid cookie were required for voting, a fraudulent vote might be prevented by using encoded timestamps and sequence numbers; but if a vote isn’t allowed without a cookie, how could anyone vote for the first time (at least without some complex registration system that would discourage voting)? If each computer had a unique IP address, the problem would seem to be fairly easy to solve, but as I understand it, people who use dial-up and cable internet services share IP addresses.

    One site I recently voted at had one of those “type in the characters you see” things. While that doesn’t prevent individual cheating, it would at least seem to make a bot writers job considerably more difficult. (Though I suspect it might not be too hard to to write a program to clean up the image sufficiently that it could be processed by OCR software.)

  620. Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 6:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #626

    The only way to prevent this would be to limit the number of votes coming from one IP during a certain period of time.
    Assuming that one IP has a network behind is politically correct (as you allow let’s say all exmployees to vote) but you no longer have security on the poll. Zip!

    Captchas shows people lazyness and not every1 would have voted as they did.
    It’s a no way out situation unless you consider one IP = one Vote in 24 hours.

  621. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

    (Steve, please delete last post, not sure what happened)

    Philip B, client side javascript to determine if you’ve voted?, wow, I’ll take your word for it, thought no one could be that stupid.

    >> I’m curious as to how fraudulent voting could be prevented. It seems like every time there’s a once-a-day web vote, someone suggests cheating by deleting the cookie
    … If each computer had a unique IP address, the problem would seem to be fairly easy to solve, but as I understand it, people who use dial-up and cable internet services share IP addresses.

    MJW, Each computer does have a unique IP, it’s just that for geo-location purposes, they are located at Verizon for example. The geo-location is a problem for consumer tracking since they cannot identify you, so they use cookies. It does not hamper web polls, since de-identified data is ok. The unique IP is not static however. One could disconnect the cable modem, and reconnect, and all your computers get assigned a new one.

    To deter (but not prevent) cheating, one would not use any client side script or cookies. The table structure could be

    CREATE TABLE WebVote
    (
    IPAddress, (Pk)
    BlogID, (Pk)
    NumVotes,
    VoteTime,
    )

    When the user clicks on a radio button for a certain blog, it would issue this SQL (obviously SQL Server dialect)

    IF NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM WebVote WHERE IPAddress=’x’ AND BlogID=’y’)

    BEGIN INSERT INTO WebVote (IPAddress,BlogID,NumVotes,VoteTime)

    VALUES(‘x’,’y’,1,CURRENT_TIMESTAMP) END

    ELSE BEGIN UPDATE WebVote SET NumVotes = NumVotes+1, VoteTime=CURRENT_TIMESTAMP

    WHERE IPAddress=’x’ AND BlogID=’y’ AND VoteTime

    If the vote from a certain IP address is within 24 hours of the last vote, the update will not execute.

    A CAPTCHA (“type in the characters you see”) can be used to navigate to the vote page. Actually, they are quite difficult to break. The page load of The Vote page would check the Referrer in HTTP Request Header to ensure that the user navigated from the CAPTCHA page.

    Most people have a router (in the form a cable modem) that is actually getting the public IP. Computers inside your house or your workplace are getting a unique (TCP/IP does not allow IP sharing) IP Address, but it’s a private one. This means that once you vote from one computer in your house or work place, the others will be shut out, since they show up as the public IP address of the router. That’s good for households, but seems restrictive for a big workplace. One could give those users a chance to verify by e-mail address as an alternate. That’s what Vote.com does.

    I could implement this as a demo if you were really interested.

  622. John F. Pittman
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Happy belated birthday.

  623. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

    AND VoteTime

  624. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Ok, it won’t let me post the SQL that checks for 24 hours ago, but you get the picture, as if anyone cares.

  625. Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Gunnar your posts are at most entertaining. I bet you are one of the super cool coders that work for WLA and did this mess and I appologize if a hacker got you fired.
    1st – this is not the place to come with your : )__) sql code and amaze people. Let’s get serious here.
    2nd – if you mr. Professional noticed they use PHP so they use MySql not SQL server. Take your solution to ASP script kiddies.
    3rd – let’s make a verify by email poll and see how many participate. Some people don’t check mail for days. If you vote in 10 categories you hang yourself.

    Peple are lazy and any real coding / webdev experience would have shown you that. If you didn’t notice it don’t be wondering why your site conversion socks!
    Last but not least I really dislike people that come to an audience that has nothing to do with a subject and tries to amaze them telling noobish things that do sound advanced.
    It’s pathetic and say what you said on a real webcoder forum. You’ll put a smile on any sad face.

    Cheers Gunnar. ( SQL Server Obviusly : )_______) )

    PS: I love the ending with I tried to put more code but it won’t let me. You really crave for attention my friend and this is not the place to get it.

  626. MrPete
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Email verification has zero ability to eliminate duplicate voting from fraudsters. It’s actually a rather hard problem.

  627. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 5:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Gunnar, PL sucks for the SQL purist. Get rid of your PL and use a correlated subquery. They were put in SQL for a reason.

    INSERT INTO TABLE
    WHERE (SELECT COUNT FROM TABLE WHERE correlated ip address same) = 0

    It’s a few years since I wrote SQL, so I’m rusty on the syntax.

  628. M. Jeff
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 6:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Since the Best Science Blog competition, the level of civility here seems to have deteriorated.

  629. Steve Moore
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 7:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    SELECT * from THE TEAM where CLUE > 0
    0 rows returned

    ?

  630. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    >> They were put in SQL for a reason.

    Oh really? Philip_B, actually, I always use ansi SQL when I can. A couple of years ago, I tried to come up with a standard way to do what I did above with one SQL statement. I’d settle for 2 though, but couldn’t find it. AFAIK, you can’t use a correlated subquery with an insert statement, but I could be wrong, and would love to find out if it’s possible.

    Can you try to get your syntax correct at this site: http://developer.mimer.com/validator/parser200x/index.tml

    If there is no ansi SQL way to do it, then I’ll continue to use this T-SQL when it’s SQL Server. PL is Oracle.

    Subliminal, spell much? Not sure why you launched into ad-hominem. MJW asked for a more robust solution. Since you’re psycho analyzing me, I would speculate that you feel really insecure about the growing prominence of SQL Server & ASP.NET, so you lash out against anyone who doesn’t. #2, the fact that WLA uses PHP, a technology from 1994, is irrelevant, in the context of the question I was answering. #3, email verification was an alternate method, for those that are locked out because someone in their office has already voted. Given that it’s a measure of loyalty, all the better.

    >> Email verification has zero ability to eliminate duplicate voting from fraudsters.

    MrPete, care to elaborate?

  631. Larry
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Mmmmmm…….popcorn……..

  632. Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 9:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    @Larry–
    Given the massive comment deletion between 632 and 633, I don’t think the Gunnar/ 5obliminal conversation is really going to get off the ground. (I have no issues with comment deletion; but who wants to repost explanations about why Gunnar suggests really is not enough or discuss the whole spelling issue? )

    Steve: I don’t mind some banter from people who are online, but it doesn’t need to be preserved, so don’t expect it to have a long life expectancy.

  633. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 10, 2007 at 11:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    AFAIK, you can’t use a correlated subquery with an insert statement, but I could be wrong

    You are wrong. Its been in the standard since the begining. Reference, Date’s A Guide to the SQL Standard. Perhaps the best technical book ever written. I wish I had a $ for every time I showed a programmer how to get a result in standard SQL without resorting to procedural extensions and another $ for every time they borrowed my copy of Date’s book to check something, after I’d drummed into them standards compliance.

  634. Posted Nov 11, 2007 at 7:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    @Steve– No problem. Things had definitely gone well off track! But, with respect to Gunnar’s comment in 637, 5ubliminal had admitted he was argumentative.

  635. Larry
    Posted Nov 11, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry if this is a distraction, but I figured that this thread was pretty well spent, anyway. And if you know Gunnar, you’d find this entertaining.

    And I’m actually learning something by listening to all of this. I’m just not sure if what I’m learning is right.

  636. 5ubliminal
    Posted Nov 11, 2007 at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    True Philip_B . SQL Server coders have a tendency to scratch the back of their heads taking the long way (you know the route).
    Standard SQL rules. KISS (Keep It Simple Gunnar) is the concept you should go by. And join a webdev forum for the show-off, not here. Let those in the field have all the fun!

    Gunnar … I can’t spell (I’m not EN speaker) … but you can’t read! MJW says :

    As someone who knows next to nothing about web programming

    So he did not ask for a solution but a short explanation for a non-tech individual. :)__)

    PS: Gunnar … you’re out!

  637. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 11, 2007 at 1:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    At da risque av proveiding mor entrtaynment forr Larry, I’ll just ask one more question, and make one more comment.

    >> Its been in the standard since the begining

    Great, since I am also really focused on the standard. Can you use the link I provided to get your syntax correct? That way, I’ll learn something, and this won’t be a total waste of time.

    >> I’m not EN speaker

    I guess you’re off the hook then. Sorry.

    >> he did not ask for a solution but a short explanation for a non-tech individual. :)__)

    The solution was so simple, it would have taken only slightly longer to implement it. The questioner mentioned several complicated subjects in his question. And with all the detailed statistics, R Code, C code, discussed here, my post almost doesn’t qualify as technical. However, point taken, especially since the WordPress SQL injection filter doesn’t allow it.

    >> PS: Gunnar … you’re out

    ok, game over.

  638. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 11, 2007 at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I think the Mohel took more than a snip from Gunnar and Flub blinal.

    oar knot

  639. Larry
    Posted Nov 11, 2007 at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I know I was fors(a)kin by the mohel…

  640. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 11, 2007 at 6:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Gunnar, the link below from Oracle explains correlated subqueries with examples.

    http://download-east.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/server.101/b10759/queries007.htm

    And get yourself a copy of Date’s book. It really is a gem of clarity.

  641. Philip_B
    Posted Nov 11, 2007 at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Gunnar, got to eat some humble pie here. You are right and you cant have a correlated subquery in an insert statement. I remember the reason. SQL statements are atomic and insert into the same table you are selecting from can’t be evaluated atomically because the table changes during the insert.

  642. MrPete
    Posted Nov 12, 2007 at 4:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Why is email verification useless for prevention of duplicate voting?

    Because anyone with control over an email server can process an essentially infinite number of email addresses. Think of it qas reverse phishing.

    A non-techie explanation: a common form of spammer attack is the “dictionary” attack: attempt to send emails to DictionaryWord@somwhere.com, where DictionaryName is every word in a dictionary.

    I’ve seen blunt attacks: one per second from the same source, in alphabetical order. I’ve seen sophisticated versions: randomized, with random timing, from a dozen sources… but over time it becomes obvious [if you are looking] that the dozen sources are all pulling from a single dictionary.

    Similar tools can be used to generate a million “email validated” votes — (automated, and random reply time) response to each and every verification email.

    If a computer can be used to emulate ELIZA (sorry for the four decade old example!), this is a nit.

    A good voting system must distinguish between votes from 1,000 people at ibm.com and 1,000 “people” at FakeBigCompany.com, both of which are behind good firewalls — and that’s a tough order.

  643. MrPete
    Posted Nov 12, 2007 at 4:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This is more apropos than one might think. I don’t want to get into a huge OT argument, but think about parallels between the following challenges:

    * Distinguish human vs automated voting responses.
    * Distinguish natural vs anthropogenic warming.
    * Distinguish natural vs intelligenic evolution.
    * Distinguish natural vs anthropogenic equipment failure.
    * Distinguish natural vs medicated healing.

    Our tendency in almost all situations is to minimize our sense of the uncertainty levels — if we calculate them at all. I.e., we think we know what’s going on. But that doesn’t mean we actually do. People tend to be predisposed to think we know what’s going on… whether we really do or not. The fact that we’re VERY bad at predicting the future ought to bring some humility…yet too often it does not. (Overall, could this explain why most older scientists tend to be a less vociferous lot–they’ve learned caution over the years?)

  644. Gunnar
    Posted Nov 12, 2007 at 7:01 AM | Permalink | Reply

    #648, Philip_B, no problem, and thanks for responding. I could have been wrong. Now, we both know for sure, and I know more about your intellectual honesty.

    #649, MrPete, great points all. A capcha in the process might help, but there is always a way around everything, but there is a practical limit to what someone will do to skew a meaningless web poll.

    #650 >> Our tendency in almost all situations is to minimize our sense of the uncertainty levels

    So true, and to maximize our sense of efficacy. The end result is: we’re certain that disaster is coming, and we know we did it. Human conceit.

  645. Posted Nov 12, 2007 at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    @Phillip_B: Yep. And a good voting system must do this without discouraging voting.

    Web contests are often motivated by the publicity they get for the group that runs the contents, and the advertising sold during the contest. So, aside from fairness issues, those groups rarely want to discourage voting.

  646. Greg
    Posted Nov 15, 2007 at 7:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Enjoyed it!
    Good review on the whole poll ordeal:
    http://www.inoculatedmind.com/2007/11/12/monday-madness-stop-suppressing-the-vote/

  647. Posted May 16, 2008 at 5:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Well I found it the most long post with a heated debate. After reading your whole post and comment now I think to again commence this hot discussion but to be frank very confused with where to start, still its very informative and helpful to me.
    Thanks
    Kingston

7 Trackbacks

  1. By Vote for Climate Audit | Mit dem Kopf voran on Nov 7, 2007 at 10:33 AM

    [...] for Climate Auditvon: steffenh   Kategorie: Blogosphäre Der Weblog von Steven McIntyre Climate Audit, dem wir die Aufdeckung des Hockey-Stick-Skandals zu verdanken haben, ist auf dem besten Wege zum [...]

  2. By Vote for ClimateAudit! | Mit dem Kopf voran on Nov 7, 2007 at 11:08 AM

    [...] for ClimateAudit!von: steffenh   Kategorie: Blogosphäre Der Weblog von Steven McIntyre ClimateAudit, dem wir die Aufdeckung des Hockey-Stick-Skandals zu verdanken haben, ist auf dem besten Wege zum [...]

  3. By Political Science : Point Oh! on Nov 8, 2007 at 10:34 AM

    [...] with science.  Of course, once BoingBoing chimes in the fun really starts, as you can see in the 200+ comments on the most recent Climate Audit [...]

  4. [...] to say, McIntyre is pushing for himself to win as well. Kevin at DeSmogBlog is encouraging those who value science to vote for the current [...]

  5. [...] to say, McIntyre is pushing for himself to win as well. Kevin at DeSmogBlog is encouraging those who value science to vote for the current [...]

  6. By Drasties Blog on Nov 8, 2007 at 6:54 PM

    [...] Poll. Vote for Climate Audit. Fighting Global Warming nonsense.” Needless to say, McIntyre is pushing for himself to win as well. Kevin at DeSmogBlog is encouraging those who value science to vote for the current [...]

  7. [...] Incet incet, Bad Astronomy a inceput sa recupereze, spre oroarea cititorilor fideli ai celuilalt blog – Climate Audit – care au inceput sa emita suspiciuni de “frauda electorala” (vezi discutia aici) [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,134 other followers

%d bloggers like this: