1  2  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 67:

1. Chris G at 12:47 PM on 9 January, 2012
   Regarding the comments policy, I think they have done a good job of reducing noise in the comments. I do think short (say ~12 words) copies from what someone else wrote are an acceptable means of identifying a key point of contention, particularly if the previous comment was longish and contained multiple points. However, I concede that copy-paste can lead to clutter and abuse, and so allowing any at all puts more of a burden on the moderators than may be worthwhile.
   
   Can you hint at what aspects are being discussed, or would that taint the results?
   
   One of my peeves at other sites is the posting of a naked URL; please tell me what you think I should take away from the information there. It is seldom worthwhile to read pages of information and then have to guess at what the linker thinks it means. There are others more important, but that one is a distinguishing feature.
   
   Of course, I've only gotten called on policy once that I recall; so, I'm biased toward leaving it as it is.
2. Chris G at 12:58 PM on 9 January, 2012
   Oh yeah, I still think it would be more clear if the tip on how to link a picture were changed to something like:
   
   
   ‹a href="URL of the page containing the picture"›‹img width="450" src="URL of the picture within that page"›‹/a›
3. Stevo at 13:46 PM on 9 January, 2012
   Agreeing with Chris. Which aspects of comments policy are you looking at changing?
   
   As for the current comments policy, I regard it as the great strength of this site. Please keep it just as it is.
4. Daniel Bailey at 14:16 PM on 9 January, 2012
   Basically we're looking for user inputs. This site is for you, the user; what we'd like to hear is what you like about the Comments Policy, dislike about it, and any suggestions for improvement you may have. About the Comments Policy or any other present or desired aspect of the site.
   
   Such as by Chris G above WRT the image posting tips.
   
   I know one thing I'd like to see is the addition of WYSIWYG capabilities to the comments posting box.
5. Pete Dunkelberg at 14:48 PM on 9 January, 2012
   Comment policy - agree with Stevo @ 3.
6. adelady at 15:12 PM on 9 January, 2012
   I'd really like WYSIWYG. It's becoming more common elsewhere and it does make things easier for people who tend to emPHAsise by using allcaps. Would also make life a bit simpler for moderators - rather than coming down hard on new or naive commenters with a demand that they can't say what they want without acquiring a whole new skill set. (Or at least, that's the way some of them might see it.)
   
   As for comments policy and moderation, stay strong.
7. John Hartz at 15:34 PM on 9 January, 2012
   @Daniel Bailey #4:
   
   Let's keep this thread focused on the comments policy and moderation. We'll be asking for reader input on other aspects of the SkS website in future editions of the Weekly Summary.
8. John Hartz at 15:41 PM on 9 January, 2012
   @Chris G & Stevo:
   
   The potential changes to the Comments Policy being discussed by the SkS author team are relatively minor tweaks here and there. No major changes are being contemplated at this time.
9. actually thoughtful at 15:44 PM on 9 January, 2012
   wysiwyg - yes.
   
   Moderation of trolls: - I suggest you let them post their first message (whenever/wherever it occurs). Then, in a moderator response - explain they are "on probation" until they support their claims in that thread. So they would be banned from any thread but that one. Then they get two chances. If they don't show _significant_ signs of being amenable to facts and logic - ban 'em! (As in the Apirate would be the bottom of the barrel for being amenable to facts and logic). But leave their first shot and two chances up for posterity - to demonstrate this is how it works here. This _should_ reduce moderation work over time.
   
   Another idea for trolls - I would like this site to either accept that trolls drive up message count (note the BS* post went from 50+ to ~20 when troll was subtracted) - so people obviously _like_ setting someone straight or assign only one person to battle the troll. It gets tiring to read through, literally 5-10 people correcting the one person. It feels like they have won by wrapping us around the axle on whatever their ax is (if I may be so bold as to mix my metaphors).
   
   I _don't_ like moderators having to police housekeeping stuff like all caps (a message in all caps is bad, but for emphasis, w/o wysiswyg it seems like a silly thing to spend so much time/effort on). I always think I will use caps for the occasional emphasis until we get wysiwyg around here. I am only avoiding that on this post as you were nice enough to _ask_. And I assume/hope Rob P has better things to do than snip out the best parts of my posts....
   
   For we the great unwashed (regulars who are neither trolls nor moderators) - I would appreciate a moderator response any time you edit my post - so I know what you didn't like, so I can decide to ignore it (grin here) or change my ways. Again, the over-riding goal of moderation is to reduce the moderation load in the future (within reason).
   
   Overall the moderation is what prevents this from being a WUWT style yelling and screaming match, with the moderator (referee) throwing the match to the anti-science side. But I think the appearance of fairness is critical - I thought the troll on the BS* post was getting around to asking actually valid questions before he, all his posts and all the response to his post were shown the door (though I didn't pay that much attention).
   
   The more the site bleeds fairness (yet stays true to the science right there in the URL) - the more SkS well deserved positive reputation will continue to grow.
   
   Thanks for asking. And thanks for the moderation work so far - it is truly valuable, and appreciated by all, yet clearly not as visible as the great articles.
10. John Hartz at 15:51 PM on 9 January, 2012
    @actually thoughtful #9:
    
    Thank you for your thoughtful (The Devil made me do it!) feedback. Your suggestions about how to handle trolls are particularly welcome.
11. Doug Hutcheson at 19:00 PM on 9 January, 2012
    The cartoon is the funniest I have seen posted here. Should be on a tee-shirt for like-minded people to wear as a gentle form of AGW PR.
12. CBDunkerson at 19:44 PM on 9 January, 2012
    1: Issues where posts are deemed off topic for a particular thread come up constantly. It would be nice if the moderators could actually move the post(s) to the appropriate thread with just a link to the new location left behind. Yes, this requires work by the moderators... but so does warning people that they are off-topic, specifying another thread in the comments, deleting off-topic comments, et cetera.
    
    2: There should be a standard thread for the many people with little to no understanding of the science beyond false claims they've heard elsewhere. This would be a very powerful feature for reducing off-topic clutter while still allowing questions and false beliefs to be directed to the actual science. If the headline post for the thread contained an overview of major site features and resources for new people (e.g. Most used myths, search box, big picture, fingerprints) it would help cover many of the sorts of issues that would be directed there. It would also simplify moderator duties because the vast majority of off-topic comments could be directed to a single thread rather than the moderator having to identify the best thread to house gish-gallop #734.
    
    3: The 'all caps' rule should be revised to only apply to blocks of text. Currently it is sometimes invoked (and sometimes not) when a single word is capitalized for emphasis... which frankly, is no different than bolding or italicizing. All three are examples of attempting to put the emphasis of speech into text. At that, deliberately (as opposed to by forgetting a tag) putting an entire paragraph in bold text is just as much 'shouting' and overkill as capitalizing the entire paragraph. All forms of emphasis (e.g. putting >brackets< around a word) should be allowed, but only when used sparingly.
13. scaddenp at 20:08 PM on 9 January, 2012
    For my 2c.
    
    I really like the idea of a little tool for moderators to move posts to an appropriate thread.
    
    I am not a moderator so hazy on how it works - but - could there be a button to send a commentor an email from a noreply sks email address, so can say "resubmit with a citation please" (regulars as guilty as skeptics), "try again without the inflammatory tone" etc. ie encouragement to participate in the spirit of the site but without any possibility of a private email war.
    
    I would agree that moderation is what makes this site readable.
14. les at 20:20 PM on 9 January, 2012
    another 2c from an occasional poster and avid reader...
    
    IMHO the great strength of the site is that the comments are (as I understand it) meant to be Of the Article posted and for improving, correcting and clarifying that article. Often these discussion have been superb and of high quality - including the contributions from, lets say, a wide range of thoughtful opinion.
    
    This contrasts with the bulk for blogs where it's more "here's an issue, what do people think...".
    
    However, this makes it hard, on the one hand, to get into a conversation of issues arising which may lead somewhere good; and hard, on the other hand, to moderate out trolls (who pretend to be discussing issues arising) without the accusation of censorship.
    
    IMHO that dilemma could be cured by having a 'sister' discussion forum - even just something like google groups or such - as a place for 'off topic' interesting discussions + a sink for trolls.
    
    Whether or not that's done; I do think a strong and clear comments policy keeping discussion to the topic to had is the right way to go.
15. FK at 23:41 PM on 9 January, 2012
    I think the comment policy on SkS is one of the best.
    
    Would a ban on new unvetted users making the first comment on a post help? The first comment often directs the further comments in the discussion - a distraction if it was a troll.
16. Michael Whittemore at 01:42 AM on 10 January, 2012
    A spam button would be good, one that we can all push to hide the trolls comments. This way you can see the comment by revealing it, but it will reduce its effectiveness.
17. Eric (skeptic) at 02:37 AM on 10 January, 2012
    I'm not sure that sidelining comments by "trolls" is as effective as snipping (although I realize the latter is more work). Nobody suffers any lasting harm when a comment is snipped and since it improves the threads and reduces volume in latest comments, it is a worthwhile timesaver. But for the sake of future threads it may be valuable to have an array of typical arguments pro and con for each topic (on topic of course). Sidelining the pros and cons and making it more difficult to see or respond may not be as helpful as one might think. For one thing, I doubt that more than 1% of folks redirected to this site by links elsewhere will read the comments; in those cases the trolls simply don't matter.
18. Tom Smerling at 04:05 AM on 10 January, 2012
    nice catch on this 'toon! :)
19. Michael Whittemore at 04:32 AM on 10 January, 2012
    @ Eric. I tend to agree, after reading a good amount of comments over the last hour or two, the moderators are doing a fantastic job.
20. perseus at 04:45 AM on 10 January, 2012
    What is the purpose of this from the comments policy? It can make the thread rather difficult to read without quotes. Sorry if it is a quote itself!!
    
    No copying and pasting from other comments. If you wish to refer to earlier comments, you can hyperlink directly to them. To make this easier, note that with each comment, the date/time is a hyperlink. If you link to this URL, clicking on the link will take you directly to that part of the page.
    
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml
21. KR at 05:17 AM on 10 January, 2012
    perseus - I think it's to prevent wholesale incorporation of pages of text from other sources, or simply repeating large previous comments, which is fairly common practice on some blogs.
    
    It's quite reasonable to include a line or two for context, though.
22. TOP at 05:18 AM on 10 January, 2012
    @1 ChrisG
    This is a blog format site. However, many discussions fork off in multiple directions and this is why people feel the need to quote parts of previous comments. This response is an example just because I have to insert @1 ChrisG and hope the reader actually refers to that comment. When a forum crosses many time zones and a dialog ensues it is a major pain to have to jump back and forth to catch up when there is more than one screen of comments.
    
    All that to say, the policy is OK, but the format should be changed to deal with the all too prevalent forking of discussion threads. Comment Policy by software. This is gone on Google Groups and the user has the choice of inline or forked.
23. wandreef at 06:14 AM on 10 January, 2012
    The current policy looks good to me. Although, If it were my site I’d mention copyright and personal privacy laws in some degree as it pertains to the site. It covers your butt!
24. Fran Barlow2 at 09:56 AM on 10 January, 2012
    I'd like anyone posting climate denial dissembling without citation (eg stuff from the top ten or in Climate Crocks)
    
    a) not to get the stuff published
    b) to have a note placed explaining that they had to address directly the debunking material in detail if they wished to be published at all
    
    Mods to err on the side of deleting when stuff is in the 'grey area' or OTT (with an explanation).
    
    Let's keep this excellent site free of trollish posting.
25. Stephen Baines at 11:07 AM on 10 January, 2012
    I think the comments policy is fine, even though I sometimes get sucker punched by responding to posts that get eventually deemed in conflict of it. I just don't see a way around that if you want to keep the site effective, and different in a good way from it's "peers."
    
    In fact, I would tend to be more aggressive. When people make points that have been covered in main posts, I would simply direct them to those posts and prevent them posting unless they had some question that actually hadn't been addressed.
    
    It may be worth while having some threads or posts preserved as examples of what fails the various tests of the comments policy. I am in favor of snipping as well -- although I imagine that takes a lot of work.
    
    As for quoting text, I think it's important at times, but I try to hard to limit the amount of text quoted. Seems to me the moderators understand the proper role of quotation in a thread.
26. Philippe Chantreau at 11:37 AM on 10 January, 2012
    I would agree with Stephen above. I do tend to quote text but I try to keep it short. Sometimes I quote papers or abstracts, which I think should be tolerated, so long as there is a link that the reader can follow to get some context for the quote. Many readers will not necessarily peruse a long thread, let alone click on links provided along the way.
    
    I think the mods are doing a great job and I kinda like the snipping, especially as it is always accompanied by the justification for the snip. Anyone who has read the comment policy and sees why part of a comment is snipped will quickly gain a precise idea of how the discussion should be conducted. It should be emphasized that the comment policy and its application, together with the patience od moderators, have to date produced a discussion of excellent quality.
    
    In fact, some of the contributions of skeptics who have made efforts to comply and participate here over time are possibly the only meaningful ones I have seen anywhere on the web or in the press. I'm tempted to say you shouldn't change a formula that works.
27. Fran Barlow2 at 13:16 PM on 10 January, 2012
    [It may be worth while having some threads or posts preserved as examples of what fails the various tests of the comments policy.]
    
    Yes ... that's a good idea. A page (not open to comments) which gave examples/extracts from actual posts received, showing why they hadn't been published and where links to comprehensive debunkings were. Then when someone's effort was deleted, they could be referred with a link to the relevant section(s) of that page.
28. Tristan at 13:18 PM on 10 January, 2012
    I'm a big fan of the way comments are handled. It's very useful for people learning about the state of the science (such as myself) to be able to read the back and forth between those from different camps. It's heartening and educational to see the smackdowns.
    
    The only time I've been bothered by the comments policy is when people get erased. I think for instance that deleting 250 posts from one stubborn fellow lets him claim martyrdom and just leaves a bunch of contextless replies. Better that certain heads remain affixed to the pikes of their own devising. It's important evidence. Perhaps when conversations are sufficiently long and circular they can be moved from the main thread and linked to with an appropriate explanation. Often when I link 'skeptics' here one will pipe up 'you'll just get disappeared like me after I started winning the argument'. Moving, rather than deleting will quash these fanciful notions. Of course, the general policy of warnings followed by probation works wonders in the cases where moderators have the time and energy to engage in that.
29. actually thoughtful at 13:49 PM on 10 January, 2012
    Tristan's points are well made - the challenge I see for SkS is the perception of unfairness (obviously not true) that deleted posts leave in their wake. Much better, as Tristan so colorfully put it for "certain heads (to) remain affixed to the pikes of their own devising".
    
    Then when we are doing battle on another site, and the troll claims they were treated unfairly, we can find their posts and expose their (presumably still false) claims for what they are (again, but this time on the other site).
    
    Hoist them high, by their own petard.
30. scaddenp at 13:58 PM on 10 January, 2012
    This is good point. Final post(s)(when terminated) could be moved to equivalent of RC's Bore hole. This also needs a convenient method for moderators to move a post from one thread to another.
31. actually thoughtful at 14:09 PM on 10 January, 2012
    Another idea for trolls is this - say a typical article (written, of course, by Dana1981). The header would include "troll warrior: Daniel Bailey".
    
    So we the people would understand that any troll comments would be addressed by DB, and DB only. In this way we could count on the troll getting corrected (and more importantly, future readers) and not clog the thread with endless "please provide your sources or retract your unfounded claim; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; In order for your point to be valid you would need to explain why CO2 isn't causing the warming" and on and on and on and on.
    
    This would require a behavior change by the rank and file, but I have faith in this community getting the hang of it (especially if moderators start deleting non troll warrior response to the troll...).
    
    I do think we should be careful what we wish for. Sometimes it is quite enjoyable to set someone on the one true path (boot to the head) - if you look at the vast majority of posts that have more than 50 comments - it is the battle against a willfully ignorant person that adds the heat and comments to the thread. And then size attracts posts and on it goes.
    
    Does SkS want to give that up? I honestly don't know if that is good for the site or not.
32. Bernard J. at 14:13 PM on 10 January, 2012
    I know that John Hartz asked to keep this discussion focussed on the comments policy, but this is tangential so perhaps my diversion will be tolerated...?
    
    I have been wondering for a while if there is any way that Skeptical Science can include on its front page a list of most recent active threads. Sometimes there is a vibrant discussion occurring on old threads, but no outward sign that it's occurring if one doesn't have the actual thread up.
    
    I think that Skeptical Science is currently the only climate-related blog of note that doesn't have such a list.
    
    I apologise profusely if I am digressing too much.
33. actually thoughtful at 14:19 PM on 10 January, 2012
    Scaddenp @30 - Why cart off the bodies? Leave them in-thread - this is what happens when you bring your anti-science to SkS - an object lesson in what the comments policy really means.
    
    That way the comments policy isn't just something that is linked to when we screw up - you see its effect everywhere, and those who would like to troll the site will quickly learn there is no profit, but their silliness is available for all to hear (to the pain) and see.
34. scaddenp at 14:20 PM on 10 January, 2012
    Bernard J. Just open the "comments" link on the top. Shows you all the recent comments. Easy to see where the action is.
35. Rob Painting at 14:34 PM on 10 January, 2012
    Tristan - the Poptech deletion was my mistake. I don't know if you saw the performance by a poster called Bulla the other day, but Poptech was doing the same thing - taunting the moderator and asking for deletion by repeatedly contravening the comments policy. I wasn't going to stick around all night deleting his worthless comments and so hit the spam button. Didn't realize it deleted all his posts. Oops.
    
    Clearly we need some kind of 'timeout' function, so that moderators can deal with these kinds of people on-the-spot. The strength of SkS is that you can actually have a rational science-based discussion. That's not possible on most other climate blogs.
36. Doug Hutcheson at 15:12 PM on 10 January, 2012
    I agree with Bernard J that a gadget providing links to currently active threads would be nice. Just clicking on the comments link for a given thread, as suggested by scaddenp, does not do the same thing. I frequently encounter threads here and elsewhere that have been inactive by the time I come along with my $0.02 worth (no, really, that's all my guff is worth :).
    
    On the topic of moderation, I think this site is a shining example of probity and balance. I just don't know where the mods find the time. Please accept this as a pat on the back.
37. Doug Hutcheson at 15:14 PM on 10 January, 2012
    Aaaaaarghhhh! Stoopid me didn't notice you meant the Comments link on the site header. Sigh. Mumble. That's why I'm only worth $0.02 before inflation.
    [Crawls back under rock, bleeding]
38. Bernard J. at 15:52 PM on 10 January, 2012
    Scaddenp at #34.
    
    Ah, too simple.
    
    It's bleeding obvious that I ignored the headline linkies to my detriment!
    
    [And speaking of bleeding, move across a bit Doug H...]
39. KR at 15:58 PM on 10 January, 2012
    A simple suggestion - rename the Comments link to Recent Comments, which is both far more accurate and more of a lead-in as to where recent conversations are occurring?
40. chirhophoros at 18:29 PM on 10 January, 2012
    From the Comments Policy:
    
    No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives.
    
    From muoncounter @ 32:
    
    What makes this award-winning behavior is that it is pure unvarnished hypocrisy.
    
    From Albatross @ 40:
    
    The contrarian, professional slanderer of climate scientists and cherry picker Steve McIntyre.
    
    From the Comments Policy:
    
    No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted.
    
    From Mond from Oz @ 24:
    
    ...it involves some aspects of 'World Government' And its in the context of a growing realisation that we inevitably face an end to 'Growth', and with that, the collapse of capitalism.
    
    Beyond the consequences of drought and storm and shortage, which, despite denial they can see as well as we, lies the challenge to the established hierarchies of government, religion and social order.
    
    I assume most of us accept the Law of Non-Contradiction as fundamental to scientific endeavour. Indeed, the BS awards hinge upon the premise that the BS laureates contradict themselves.
    
    Would it be too much to ask for similar rigour in the application of the comments policy?
    Response:

    [DB] Note that this comment was originally deleted for tone-trolling, but has been reinstated due to popular demand.

    Given the nature of this thread more latitude is being given than usual in enforcement of the Comments Policy.

    Note: This does not give any license nor free rein to not adhere to the policy; any comment not conforming to the policy at the discretion of the moderator may be summarily deleted without warning.

    References to comments deleted by moderators struck out.

41. Glenn Tamblyn at 18:32 PM on 10 January, 2012
    Bernard, Doug. Let me second, third, millionth the request for a basic WYSIWYG editor here. I think I just broke another thread with a bad bit of HTML.
    
    And I am meant to be one of the team here - hangs head in shame, whimper, whimper.
42. Mark Harrigan at 18:58 PM on 10 January, 2012
    The current comments policy on this site is exemplary (at least i think so) AND it is generally applied sensibly in a balanced manner to conform with the policy without being TOO rigid.
    
    A possible suggestion would be to strengthen it further along the lines of "No claims without substantiation from recognised or peer reviewed science or other established and credible data sources"
    
    I would also support some of the ideas about "martyrs" and those who clam to have been treated unfairly by SKS.
    
    May I suggest something in this area?
    
    I have come across a few people on other sites who claim to have been "victimised" and "censored" by SKS. Investigating these "claims" usually reveals they are persistent pseudo-skeptics and Tiresome Repeaters Of Logical Lacunae Silliness (if you take my acrostic "drift").
    
    This can be ascertained from the "Deleted Comments" section BUT - they are listed ONLY in time order. Would it be possible to also list/group deleted comments by author (and the thread they came from as well)?
    
    And for persistent recidivists perhaps publish a "policy" decision as to why they have been blocked/removed that can easily be referred to?
    
    May not help on this site but sure helps to dismantle the "victim" claims in other places.
    
    Just an idea - but otherwise please keep up the great work - I apprecviate the moderators working hard to make these threads so informative, frequently scientifically erudite and generally very readable. :)
43. Doug Hutcheson at 19:09 PM on 10 January, 2012
    Glenn, Bernard, thanks for the moral support. Sniff. Still think I need a band-aid on my scraped ego. Sniff.
44. gpwayne at 21:55 PM on 10 January, 2012
    Personally, I feel the moderation policy is just about right - it largely seems fair, patient and appropriate (as much as one can judge). Those who wish to debate in a genuine way should be able to find both a method and means to communicate their ideas without resorting to cliche, deception, demagoguery or unvalidated claims - in the Guardian forum where I post regularly, it is the stuff they don't keep out (but which SkS does) that divert and generally sully the attempts to discuss the valid issues, the science and the facts, such as they are.
    
    One thing I would like to suggest, although it would take some work to make this viable: there is always the problem of 'censorship' - not so much the act, but the accusation. Where comments have to be moderated, in part or whole, could the originals not be moved to a read-only 'sin-bin' with a link to it in the original thread. This function could be programmed for moderators (pretty simple, I suspect) so that a click just moved the offending item, but those concerned with what it may have said could still view it, but without such items being obtrusive or disruptive.
45. funglestrumpet at 21:57 PM on 10 January, 2012
    As for WYSIWYG, allow paste, with formatting (possibly limited to certain features such as bold, underline, centre, bullet points, etc?), direct from Microsoft Word. That would have the benefit of spell check and grammar editing available prior to submission. Failing that, improve the guidance on using HTML features (Chrismartenson.com has an excellent help feature regarding posting comments). A worked example of linking to articles and also linking to photos/diagrams would also be of assistance.
    
    Regarding moderation; if a person continues with a behaviour that contravenes the comments policy after incurring the 'wrath' of moderators, instead of deleting or banning them, fade all their comments (past and current) on the particular thread so that what they say can still be seen, but easily skipped by those who don't wish to spend time on them. Any responses to those faded comments could also be faded (detection of name or '@X' should be easy, though John Cook might differ). It could also be a requirement that any comment being replied to include the 'name of contributer' and '@X' reference(s) at the top of comments as part of the comments policy. It might be that while off topic, say, what is being raised is of value to the discussion of climate change generally and as such worth having from a wider perspective. I assume here that while SKS is specifically about the science of climate change, what we all want is that action be taken to combat it and getting the science right (fun as it is) is only a means to that end. Also, leaving 'illegal' comments in, but faded, serves as a reminder to others that the comments policy exists and is enforced.
    
    Other than that, I find this site far better than most and its comments policy is a major factor in my forming that opinion.
    Response:

    [DB] Note that the existing comments box does contain a spell-check feature (words not in the dictionary are underlined with a wavy red line per Word).

46. John Hartz at 02:23 AM on 11 January, 2012
    One of the possible changes to the Comments Policy bandied about by SkS authors is a word limit on each comment. What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea?
47. John Hartz at 02:28 AM on 11 January, 2012
    Another possible change to the Comments Policy under discussion by SkS authors is to require that the source of each graphic included in a comment be properly explained and properly documented, i.e., no naked graphics. Your thoughts?
48. CBDunkerson at 02:51 AM on 11 January, 2012
    Word limits: I'm against it. Yes, some people will ramble on interminably to little benefit... but then there are the huge posts which cover the science in exacting detail and provide tremendous value. Look through some of the posts by visiting scientists (heck, even the long discussions with Pielke) and you'll see what I mean. Better to have no limit and cut down purposelessly excessive posts as needed IMO.
    
    Graphic sourcing: Makes sense... though in some cases the URL of the graphic seems sufficient to identify its source. For instance, would we have to document the origin of images from other SkS posts? In general this might be better handled by having a 'standard response' along the lines of, 'without sourcing it is not clear what your graphic depicts / how it was developed'... rather than having people document information on graphics where that information IS clear.
49. Daniel Bailey at 02:58 AM on 11 January, 2012
    CBD, what is optimal is some form of linked attribution, such as:
    
    http://__________
    
    or
    
    [Source]
50. les at 04:02 AM on 11 January, 2012
    45 - against. If its long it'll either be great or go off-topic... Which is covered.
    46 - yes. But not cartoons, it'll only spoil the jokes. (give or take copyright)

1  2  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.