Continuation of the New Statesman blog
Size matters
The most pressing problem at the moment is the success of this thread. With 650+ comments and 100,000 words it is becoming noticeably slow to load. Also the very much-improved preview plug-in that I installed at the weekend can’t cope resulting in infuriating delays when typing comments.
This thread cannot be allowed to grow indefinitely; WordPress simply is not designed for such vast amounts of verbiage. Here are some ideas about this:
1) A contributor has suggested that when there is an overload like this, a new page should be started, which seems very sensible. In this case I would move the most recent 30-50 comments to the new page. Somewhere around 400-500 comments would seem to be the limit if WordPress is to function efficiently This is NOT a plea to write fewer or shorter comments.
2) The total number of comments since the NS published Paul Whitehouse’s article on global cooling in December is heading for the 4000 mark. Although the group is now a far smaller one than it was at the NS (more about this below), it is generating comments at a similar pace and these cover a very wide range of topics. However the totally unstructured nature of the thread means that it is very difficult to find interesting and useful information that was submitted even a few weeks ago. One solution would be to open new threads (within the New Statesman Category – see right hand sidebar on this page) for particular topics. I’m thinking particularly of JZ and Max’s very interesting statistics on per capital CO2 emissions, but there are many others, such as Arctic Sea Ice, the ‘iniquities’ of the IPCC AR4 SPM etc. This would spread the load of comments among a number of threads while retaining the hurly-burly spontaneity of the main unthreaded pages as that exists at present. It would also mean that there are obvious places to post on particular topics and that these can be revisited as new development occur.
3) In response to a request from JZ I have uploaded a searchable archive file with all the pre-Harmless Sky comments here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/ns_comments_all.rtf
Please will someone try downloading this so that I know that it is accessible to all, but beware, the file size is over 3.6 Mb.
4) Any other suggestions will be welcome.
New blood
As I said above, the group is quite a small one and it would seem sensible to think that we encourage new participants. The simplest way of doing this is always to leave a link back to the NS thread when commenting on other blogs. Example:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63
You might copy this URL to a Notepad or other text file on your desktop and then it will always be handy for a quick copy and paste. If the site you are on has a button for making a hyperlink live, then remember to use this.
Before long I intend to change my domain hosting arrangements and when that happens URLs should become a bit more user friendly.
My webstats – the information that I get about visitors to the blog – suggest that there are a lot of people reading the blog, but not contributing. This seems to be common to most blogs.
The dreaded blog rules
I have said just about all I want to on the subject in this comment on the NS thread:
If you look at the top of this page you will see the title of this blog, and a strap-line that defines the subject matter that it was set up to deal with. My blogname also appears.
I do not want either world politics or comparative religions discussed here, except in the very narrow context where these topics have a direct bearing on climate, the countryside and landscapes. There are plenty of other forums that deal with such things. What happened yesterday was nobody’s fault. A stray remark got blown up into a major issue. It is in the nature of an electronic forum that this should happen; one of the unique advantages of blogging is that ideas are developed by the participation of a group of – more or less – like-minded people.
The blog rules were drafted in a considerable hurry at a time when I had no experience of running a blog and little expectation that anyone would read them. It may be time to have another look at these. But I must make it clear that, although I am very happy to discuss them (and genuinely grateful for spelling corrections), what is said on this thread has an impact on Harmless Sky as a whole, and that is obviously a matter that concerns me. At present we are averaging over 1000 hits a week and the trend is strongly upwards.
I am delighted that the NS threads have successfully transferred to Harmless Sky and astonished to see that, in the four months since this happened, over 650 comments have been submitted, amounting to over 100,000 words; the length of a 250 page paperback.
At this point I think that we need to consider a few administrative matters. Later today I will post a special page with some suggestions and a request for feedback. Please do not respond to what I have said in this comment here, but do so on the special page when it appears.
Perhaps I should add that I am very conscious of the fact that I am the host of the NS thread and not its proprietor.
I do not believe that rules should be automatically and rigidly enforced, but there do have to be one or two lines drawn in the sand if we are to escape the flaming, rancour and mindless abuse that afflicts some other sites that deal with controversial subjects. So far we have been free of it and I want things to stay that way as Harmless Sky continues to grow.
I look forward to hearing what people think about all these things. There probably will not be solutions that will suit everyone, but with luck a consensus (Oh! how can I use that term?) can be found.
The problem with comment overload on the present thread is pretty urgent.
Testing something: may end up blank
It’s all about the wind stupid
It’s all about the wind stupid
It’s all about the wind stupid
It’s all about the wind stupid
It’s all about the wind stupid
It’s all about the wind stupid
Per
I’m afraid that I haven’t come across this problem before and I have no idea what may be causing it. Firefox may be worth a try.
Tony, Per, I’ve noticed this too, at times. For example, if I look at the entry for 12th Feb re Obama’s speech, my screen will just show the title. I’m using Internet Explorer but am not at my home PC, which also has Google Chrome. Will try later today using Chrome, & will see if it’s there.
I’ll be very grateful for any feedback that either of you can provide. I’ll also have a look at the WordPress COdex to see if anyone else has reported this problem.
TonyN,
For what it’s worth, sometimes if I post a comment only a portion of it will appear on comment page requiring a second post to get it all to appear.
Seems to be occuring more frequently these days.
It’s probably me/my computer.
Brute
I’ve noticed that you’ve had a couple of problems recently, but I think that it is unlikely that this is a server problem. If it continues, please let me know.
Now I’m at home and looking at the site both with Google Chrome and with Internet Explorer; the page loads fine on Chrome, including all comments, but not on Internet Explorer. Could well be an Internet Explorer issue, in that case, or perhaps just an IE7 issue?
yes, i am afraid it is something about the html; when I look at the source, it is all there, even if I can only see the header when i look at it in html
Unfortunately, I cannot advise you on html, as i don’t have a clue.
anyways, picking up the dodgy edit was damn cool. well done; it is attention to detail like that which will motivate the BBC. Gillingham lost his job for less.
cheers
per
errk, andrew gilligan….
Tony,
I can’t get the search box to work for me. Is it enabled?
Also I don’t see the comments on the BCC threads.
Rgds
Peter
Peter
The search box is enabled but it’s not one of WOrdpress’s triumphs. It may look as though nothing is happening as it only takes you as far as the main post page, which does not show the comments although it does search them. You then have to click on ‘Comments’ and do an ordinary browser text search to home in on the the actual string you are looking for. In other words it is pretty hopeless.
Googling like this is often more effective:
site:ccgi.newbery1.plus.com barelysane
There may be a better third party plugin by now and I’ll have a look when I get a chance. I’ve been away.
Testing
TonyN,
I understand that you may have a workload problem in fully vetting the NS thread, but here is a suggestion, because it seems to be a shame to close it down. I’ve enjoyed it because of the diversity in character of the regular posters here, even if they do transgress your rules sometimes.
Might I suggest that you reduce your workload by allowing these regular posters to self police it in future, and to alert you if they, or an electee draw your attention that might prompt editing.
At the top of each page you could have a disclaimer that has flashing lights if necessary to say that you cannot be held responsible for some of the views that may be expressed from time to time. (and you rely on the posters to police it)
Or TonyN, how about this in gist:
Webmaster disclaimer: (Eye-catchingly at the top of each page)
This thread has a rich heritage of over 5,000 posts, but I, TonyN, the webmaster can no longer find time to vet the high volume of posts here. Following some recent departures from topic, I have an agreement to prevent repetitions of that, in that the regular posters will undertake to self-police this thread, and alert me if they think it requires my editorial intervention.
There have been serious departures from the intent of this website, and I hope there will be no repetitions, what with this agreement. (Date: ). The views expressed in this thread may nevertheless not reflect my own opinions or purposes.
Perhaps Robin G, might offer better wording?
Bob
I appreciate the suggestions, but I’m afraid that you are missing the point.
This blog covers a certain range of topics, and I do not want other stuff on it with or without a disclaimer. Science discussions are actually outside the scope of HS as the About page makes clear, but I’ve made an exception for the NS thread. Bearing this in mind, what happened on Thursday seemed like pretty crummy behaviour.
If people start posting about general topics then that takes up my time in two ways. I have to moderate and edit the thread, and in order to do so I have to read it fairly carefully all the time, including a lot of stuff that is irrelevant to my interests.
For the whole of Thursday, when I had a great deal to do, my ISP had server problems of a kind I have never seen before; very, very slow and intermittent data transfer which meant that I could only connect to the web for very short periods and even then only after excruciatingly long waits. Although I could see the NS pages, I couldn’t edit them, but I did notice a long comment prefaced by a note thoughtfully telling me that it was going to be about politics and religion. Given that all the regular users of the NS thread know that I don’t want these subjects discussed unless they directly relate to the climate debate, that was pretty annoying.
On Friday morning, when the system was fixed and I had a thousand things to catch up on, I found a food-fight centred on the national character of the French. Faced with the prospect of spending half an hour or so editing a long series of comments with some care so that the thread would still make sense, I decided to delete everything back to the first OT comment.
Under the circumstances, why would I have any confidence that self-policing could work? I have repeatedly made it clear that that is what I expect, but it doesn’t happen.
TonyN
We do sometimes go round in circles and there is sometimes a sense of deja vu. For the most part people keep to the topic, but I wonder if it is worth expanding it to the actual remit of the IPCC -which Climate Audit follows-that is the cause, mitigation and effect, but interpreted liberally.
For instance the research by some one like Ernst Beck is outlawed by CA but is certainly very interesting and highly relevant (was CO2 as high in Victorian times as today) whether you believe it-as I am inclined to do -or not-as Peter would assert.
Widening it like this does also give the opportunity to talk about highly relevant issues which will provide interesting insights. For example my comments about the tidal barrage destroying the environment because the greens wont accept more sensible ways of generating power. To which Peter replied he would accept nuclear which was -and is- the bete noir of most greens.
If you firmly believe something disastrous is happening it does mean you then perhaps need to sacrifice other parts of your belief system. If you want bio fuels its likely to mean the forests you also want will be cleared to make way for them. If you want to reduce food miles and buy local, the farmer in kenya will suffer.
Whilst the science underpins it all, it does widen up the discussion whilst keeping it within defined bounds.
TonyB
TonyN,
I agree that you were fully right to put a stop to the drift away from our topic that had occurred.
We had no business getting into sidetrack discussions on religion, national traits, etc.
It’s your site and you set the rules.
I’ve found you to be very open in your interpretation of what is OT.
I also appreciate that, unlike some of the strongly pro-AGW sites, you do not simply censor things out with which you may be in disagreement or jump in to give an editor’s pompous minilecture on what is right and wrong (such as Joe Romm or Gavin Schmidt constantly do), and I find this refreshing.
Keep us in line and continue to jump in from time to time yourself when you have something to say.
Regards,
Max
Re: #41, tonyb
I would certainly welcome discussion of the proposed Severn Barrage, biofuels, and nuclear. All of these are relevant to the climate debate and within the scope of Harmless Sky. One problem is that, whereas the scientific arguments are universal, mitigation schemes tend to be more parochial. The Severn Barrage may be a matter of considerable concern to those of us who are in the UK, but a bit remote for contributors in Switzerland, Australia and the US.
The role of the IPCC is also relevant, but as you point out, it may be a little difficult to find new things to say. We are heading for mid-way between assessment reports and other blogs have worked this topic pretty hard. In any case it seems inevitable that the scientific arguments will become repetitive as remarkably little that is really new has emerged since AR3 in 2001 other than the stalling of global temperature rise and an ever increasing reliance on models.
Re: #42, Max
Thanks. The NS thread really functions as a message board rather than a blog as the discussion is not lead by header posts. I realise that this does make it difficult to tell what is OT at times.
So far deleting material with which I do not agree is concerned, I would stop blogging the moment that I even contemplated doing such a thing. I set up Harmless Sky because I wanted a means of testing my own standpoint by exposing it to criticism and opposing arguments. Romm and Schmidt are playing a very different game.
TonyN,
When I click on to the ‘BBC threads’, or most of them such as the one about toothless watchdogs, I can’t read the blogs. Nothing comes up apart from the title.
I was just wondering if I’m PNG on these or whether its just a technical glitch?
Peter
Thanks for the warning. Someone reported a similar problem a while back which seemed to be temporary and unique to them.
I can’t reproduce this on any of my machines or find any reports of similar problems at WordPress. Please could you try again in, say, 24 hours time and let me know what happens?
TonyN
Sorry, pedantic/anorak moment. Just noticed that the time on the posts is 1 hour behind GMT, may need to adjust your server to BST.
Thanks, I hadn’t noticed. WordPress actually sets the time automatically to GMT, but apparently it is possible to override this.
#49 cont.
… which I hope I have just done successfully.
Yep!