Site statistics
Site traffic for the month returned to a more normal month's levels, with around 17,000 unique visitors. We published 27 new articles, from 22 in December, and 1062 comments, from 734 in December.
We didn’t publish 45 abusive, content-free or incomprehensible comments, plus a few that were rejected for copyright reasons - ie they included a complete quote of someone else's work published elsewhere without reprint permission. Total intended for publication and not published 48/1110=4.3%
Finances
Income in January was $130 in donations versus expenditure of $341.34. Google Adsense income in December and January fell just short of the magic US$100 payment threshold, so our next inpayment from them won't be until March.
ENuff sobbing Daniel
I see your white flag, a fluttering in the breeze. Perhaps most thought it was just a handkerchief mate.
David's pretty right I think, on this issue. People come here mainly to read although I would suggest it's really more about coming here simply to regurgitate the swallowed party lines, just like flies preparing their meals.
Cartoons are ideal for a site like WD. Depends on the balance though. Too many cartoons and many of us never fully load a site. Commercial sites fall for this crap all the time.
Political cartoons are a must, but simple, not piles of graphics and pretty pretty. The devil is in the simple images and the captions.
An aside to David. A feature? Or a restriction?
Enough 2 Party barracking.
I've been heavied!
Well, I guess the votes are in and my suggestion is out.
I'll just have to get used to Margo's photograph providing the only spot of page interest (in combination with the Donate cartoon and the Google ads). Once they are scrolled out, the rest is uncommonly predictable.
But, of course, some like predictability! It shows in many of the comments.
Cheers!
D for Daniel, D for Drought, D for Deity
Daniel, nice to see you around a bit to remind us not to take ourselves too seriously. I quite like your blog site.
I see the country around your way (if you are still in the Central West) is just as appalling as everywhere else. Somethings are very predictable I grant you, the drought being one of them. Beautiful willy willys out Eugowra way, spinning red tops of dust. Pretty and mesmerising as they lazily sweep to and fro across the naked landscape, but worrying too as they are a very bad sign. Still the weather folk say it is all breaking up out there in the Pacific somewhere so we're preparing to sow a paddock or two and will just have to pray they are right.
I think the WD site is OK. It would be nice to have the odd piccy but when they put some on in the middle of a thread I found the script stretched right across the page and I could not read it properly. Don't know if that is a constant problem with pictures or not. Some sites are mostly pictures but they do take a lot of downloading and our system could not cope.
I like to see the faces of the Posters in their lead posts so you get an idea of the person you are talking to. Though when I put on a couple of Post I plan later this year I think I might dye my hair first. There is a first for everything in life. Cheers Daniel. And note, I am still bothering God a bit. Someone has to defend him around her you know!
Older but no wiser!
Hi, Jenny, nice to be back among the old crowd again. It is evident that we're all a bit older but not much wiser. The drought is grinding on. A storm this afternoon, like some women, promised a lot but, despite heaps of thunder and lightening, didn't put out. What's new?
That you're still God-bothering is good. Keeps all those people employed and the bells on Sunday morning...well, life wouldn't be the same without them.
Putting up poster's pictures is not a good idea. I'm still on the most-wanted list with the Tax Department. Cheers.
P.S. If you visit again, leave a note under the door!
Bruvver Frere (that's a tautology, I know)! That you've taken up E.U. citizenship is a positive move. I feel the French will take over the world after America is finally declared bankrupt unless of course nuclear Armageddon occurs first. The guillotining of George and his Outlaws would be both symbolic and cleansing. Perhaps they could do the staff at Fox News for an encore. Tres bon! Hair shirts might come back into fashion!
Salute!
Next Comes "Rocked"
I believe "rolled" is the more appropriate word in these circumstances, Daniel. As in "Daniel has been rolled!". Or even, "Daniel has been rolled big time!". "Heavied" is what happens to you when you have the numbers.
Stoned wouldl be better!
Geoff, given a choice between heavied, rolled and rocked, I choose 'stoned' which is close to rocked but seems much more pleasant from what I've heard (this assumes I have any say in it which appears unlikely).
I'm glad you didn't offer me the options of being burned at the stake, crucified or keel-hauled. It shows your true humanitarian nature.
P.S. If I recall correctly, you were a man who made many a comment complete with dramatic photographs. I would've thought you'd have been on my side on this one! Cheers.
SHE'S SO HEAVY ... SHE'S MY BRUVVER
und wir tanzen zussammen farbliche Ost-Preussiche Art, Lugers mit, gegen Untermenschen fuer Kultur!
Daniel Ekin Smyth: "I've been heavied!" Call that heavied? Wait till you've been Demi-Dunked on Catallepsy\org, cobber.
Frère Jihad Jacques OAM née Woodforde, Ern Malley Fellow, School of Australian anti-Lit, BoonerVarsity of Yard Knocks, Bogan City.
No Daniel, just an observation mate.
No Daniel, just an observation mate.
Interesting blog, takes some reading.
Enough 2 Party barracking.
Makeover?
I just can't figure out why people come here with no interest of exchanging ideas. Why no one seems to enjoy a little fun, a little heckling, questioning.
What happened. I keep reading WD's birth notice as Margo envisaged it. Is this it. Peggy Lee sings in the background.
Wot, Ross?
"I just can't figure out why people come here with no interest of exchanging ideas," says Ross in what I suppose is a reply to my observation that perhaps a Makeover to WD mightn't go astray.
Looking at the comment lists, Ross, it seems that the same handful of people are still there discussing and debating the same topics. Perhaps it might be getting a bit incestuous and offputting to people browsing the Internet. They might fear that they are breaking into some kind of inner circle and go elsewhere!
That aside, my comment about a makeover was made knowing the financial problems that WD is having and the intention behind my positive, constructive thought was that a more attractive site might attract more people.
Do you have a problem with that?
Onya, Ross, anyone!
But, mate, do you think that Webdiary would have more universal appeal if it had a makeover?
Please, someone, anyone, respond to my question...sob...stop your furious debating and point-scoring for a few bloody minutes and, if you will, concentrate hard...
I'm talking about, you know: photos (black and white or coloured), cartoons, different coloured printing, different sizes and styles of fonts, different coloured or patterned backgrounds...hullo...is anyone home or are you all too busy at the front, huddled deep in the trenches, firing rocket-propelled grenades by the dozens at each other...
Can't you see my white flag? Are you blind?
David R: personally, I'm happy with it the way it is - I HATE sites that are too busy with mismatching fonts etc. Secondly, I doubt that the look makes more than a minimal difference to whether people who find the site stay to read more or take part. If anyone else has views, happy to hear them, but as Daniel points out, none of you have said anything either way. I do note that the most popular site of this kind in the world, Boing Boing, is just as restrained in fonts, colours, etc as we are.
We experimented over the last month (following a suggestion from another Webdiarist) with reducing the pitch so that more of the live articles are visible on the front page. Putting pictures in the front page excerpts would liven up the page, but negate that by essentially restricting the visible options without scrolling to one or two. Any views on that?
Finally, some of what Daniel suggests would cause us problems. It is a feature of the drupal system that every page is newly built from the database as it is requested, ensuring that it keeps up with publication of new comments and articles. We had to simplify the page design significantly by removing several blocks in order to get past the fact that our hosting provider was taking the site down to reduce the processor load. Any significant increase in the complexity of the page build is probably not available to us.
Blog URL Daniel?
Hey Daniel, your URL mate? Thanks.
Enough 2 Party barracking.
URL?
Ross, Margo has kindly put my current URL on Member's Blogs to replace the old one.
http://seeking-utopia.blogspot.com will find me should you ever feel the need.
Cheers!
Does Webdiary need a makeover?
Logging onto Webdiary this evening, I was suddenly struck by the idea that perhaps W.D. needs an urgent makeover. Travelling as I do around many blog across the world I was suddenly struck by the...I must be careful...ordinariness of the W.D. presentation: black on white, no photographs, the same format for every post, etc.
I wonder if the audience for such a great blog might be vastly increased by a spot of innovation, a new look!
Just a suggestion. What would I know?
Salute Daniel!
Hey Daniel, who is "they" mate? All of us perhaps. That would leave Daniel with a private blog with his own editor. Hmmm.
Fiona, you already have dear.
Enough 2 Party barracking.
Private blog?
My blog, like Webdiary, is open for the whole world to read. Other than that it's private I suppose!
I also have a delete key. It's very useful for getting rid of pedants, whingers, and one-eyed fanatics.
It's marked 'Del', mate!
P.S. Good to see that you're still in there punching, Ross.
fascinating!
Having written my first letter to the editor to The Dominion, then New Zealand's national daily, at 15 (1953) advocating that NZ leave the Commonwealth --- or was it still the empire? --- and boost our trade with Japan because the opportunities were better, was published and went down like a lead balloon!
At 68, and innumerable letters later, the percentage published minuscule, — just try getting a letter published on driving skills that suggests that those who believe they need a 4WD if they are going off road cannot drive! Or that people whose driving experience is limited to driving to and from work, with the occasional holiday thrown in, have very limited driving skills — I wonder just how precious you need to be to be concerned by the inevitable non-publication of some efforts.
Some live, some die. Get over it.
PS For four or five years during the nineties I had, more or less, a letter a week published in the local paper.
No problems: only solutions
To me the only reasonable solution to this impasse is to make the complainants of bias, who appear to be limited to Jay White and Geoff Pahoff, volunteer Webdiary moderators. This idea has the simplicity and efficacy of a certain biblical King. I consider the answer to this proposal, by the respective parties, to be a test of the integrity of each and determinative of who really deserves the baby.
Also I may have been able to arrange finances to purchase the book I am meant to be reviewing. I have heard nothing about it after sending my address to the wediary editor's email, so I am unsure if it has been sent out yet or no. I would have to order it in which would be problematic because I am not 100% certain which book it is.
Biblical or not
I think, Solomon Wakeling, you might find it was King Canute who first thought up the idea. Then the Trots took it up and finally the Israelis adopted the blitzkreig from the Germans. The celtic solution is to tell the whingers to get stuffed, then kill them.
A simple solution..
From someone whose posts have been edited every which way ,,, post acccording to the guidelines, and your work will be published.
Experimenting with the editorial radar of newspapers is often worth doing. God knows (maybe) how many times I've tried it. However, playing cat and mouse games with volunteer moderators is in a lower league than challenging the morals of a media emper pr/S.
Shouldn't we know better?
"Delayed" publication
I haven't been around for the last couple of weeks except to publish articles and make the odd response on the Morality without a God stream, so I am just now catching up on some of the comments. [Sue had an emergency operation to reattach a detached retina, and had to be looked after while not allowed to move off from lying on her right side, and now has to be chauffeured until she gets binocular vision back]
One specific point I would like to make is to repeat that, since we stopped being able to afford to pay Hamish to cover the weekdays' editing, comments moderation is done by volunteers as and when they get an hour or two to respond. Fiona often does a lot of her own work at a computer in the daytime so can keep up with a reasonable stream at odd moments: Richard often clears the queue at night after his pub closes: the rest of us pitch in when we can. This means that the time delay between comment submission and publication is highly variable, and particularly if Fiona is busy or off working in strange places there might be nothing published for a whole day sometimes.
On top of this, if editors are unsure about whether to publish a marginal post, they might hold it for consultation with others - and again, if the others aren't around, that might take eg into the next day to happen. On the basis of some of the comments below, we could shortcircuit this by just not publishing anything sarcastic or dubious, but we still try to give the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. Nonetheless, we still have zero tolerance for statements like "x is lying" or "y is a hypocrite", and if you include those phrases or any like them, your comment will not be published, however persuasive, brilliant or lengthy the rest of what you say is. Another one I will specify is that your comment will not be published if you accuse an editor or editors of bias or favouritism, though I will check on any complaints, and complaints can also be referred to Margo if you don't like my conclusion.
As with the general run of delays, this never has anything to do with prejudice for or against particular writers or subjects (except those listed in the Editorial Policy) - though we are biased, I guess, in favour of commentary that is coherent and formatted correctly - it is practically certain that any comment that is full of pasted text of varying sizes, fonts,and colours will wait behind other comments until someone has the time to clean it up.
For anyone who pines after the soft and lenient hand of our blessed Margo, you obviously have short memories and/or haven't read her last recent exchange with Roslyn.
WD And Publication
we could shortcircuit this by just not publishing anything sarcastic or dubious, but we still try to give the benefit of the doubt as much as possible (DR)
Another one I will specify is that your comment will not be published if you accuse an editor or editors of bias or favouritism,(DR)
we still have zero tolerance for statements like "x is lying" or "y is a hypocrite", and if you include those phrases or any like them, your comment will not be published, however persuasive, brilliant(DR)
just really should have shut up, I accept that. I'm pretty sure he was being facetious (sorry if I'm wrong!) and my bad attempt at responding in a humourous way fell as flat as a pancake.(DC)
Like a few of your [another commenter's] posts lately, It contains a level of aspersion-casting on the personal integrity of WD moderators (an issue that Margo has strong views on) that I considered inappropriate to publish without consultation. (DC)
I'm getting tired of this issue. At the risk of sounding repetitive, here are some points I have made before about WD's editorial policy and to my mind have been confirmed by the exchange on this thread.
Like some other commenters here I sometimes attempt to make a post layered or even multi-layered. Was I being satirical or even facetious about my money gushing proposal and seeking to make a point or two about WD's editorial policy? Of course I was. I was also attempting an allusion or two at the nature of business and commercial acumen. But was I also seriously suggesting an idea that if properly implemented may well prove to be a nice little earner and business publicity booster for WD? Yes I was. I was doing that as well.
David R: our bias is toward publication of any comment that moves the debate forward. Inevitably, that means that the line is always and continuously under review (and we certainly move the line about when a "robust" comment is in response to a like one. Our bias is also in favour of not altering history by deleting or removing things once published: one of the results of that is that it does indeed take time to deal with a complaint that something should not have been published - hence the "I perceived I was denied a right of reply, at least initially" above, where your response was itself unacceptable, and on its own would simply have been DNP'd, but after careful consideration I published the main part of your response, and also took the unusual step of removing the original comment that you were responding to. I have explained before (and will keep repeating) that there is at least one simple rule on what is offensive: writing "you are a liar/hypocrite/racist" is offensive and will not be published, while writing "what you have written here is not true/hypocritical/racist" with some reasoning is acceptable.
Publication And Bias
where your response was itself unacceptable, and on its own would simply have been DNP'd, but after careful consideration I published the main part of your response, and also took the unusual step of removing the original comment that you were responding to. I have explained before (and will keep repeating) that there is at least one simple rule on what is offensive: writing "you are a liar/hypocrite/racist" is offensive and will not be published, while writing "what you have written here is not true/hypocritical/racist"
This is crap David and you know it. It is a misrepresentation of the exchange I described that in any event I was using to illustrate a broader point on the nature of what is offensive. You have twisted this as a distraction from the points I was attempting. Again.
Do you want me to give another example of what is offensive? Well here's one. Your habit of referring to DNP'ed comments, and sometimes the commenter, as "abusive, meaningless, without substance and/or foul mouthed etc" merely on the basis of them being DNP'ed. The reader of course is not in a position to make their own judgement about this of course, because you have DNP'ed the comments. And yet you do not hesitate to put your own labels (themselves often quite offensive) to these posts and sometimes you even quote extracts fom the post. Occasionally you add a snide personal observation. I'm not going to accuse you of hypocrisy, David. After all I want this comment published.
But I am going to say that from my perspective there is one set of rules for some at WD and another set for others. And I know for a fact that it doesn't take calling someone a liar or a hypocrite to get a comment banned by WD. I also know for an absolute fact that a commenter can get away with the most disgusting and dishonest deeply offensive slurs (not to mention lies) and WD will happily publish away month after month notwithstanding what other commenters are saying (both published and not published).
David R: well, we've been over this ground many times. I think you're wrong, and I see all the unpublished posts, which you don't. The moderators put many hours into thinking carefully about each decision, and then each of you reacts to your own outcomes as biased etc. Well, just ain't true.
I would suggest that, if
I would suggest that, if a delayed post was later posted in its appropriate time slot, no one would ever see it.
I would point out that the "jump to new post" instruction simply doesn't work. Clicking this leads to the first post on the thread most often. Not always, just most often.
I would point out that post responses on the right hand side of the main site don't reflect what is on the thread. E.g., Mile Lyvers two posts "V funny Solomon" and "PS Solomon" have been there for at least an hour, with no corresponding posts on the thread.
But, perhaps they had been delayed and are hidden somewhere up thread? Will anyone bother to find them? probably not me. But, I do find the suggestion from the right hand, that there are responses when in fact they are not there, irritating.
David R: since no-one but the editors can see posts that are delayed and unpublished, no-one can be responding to delayed or unpublished posts: they may be responding to posts that are farther back than the list on the right: if you select "threaded" presentation, they should normally be displayed under the comments to which they respond. On your first comment, since the timing of comment submission is the ordering factor in the database, inevitably delayed comments appear other than at the top of the list: we can always deal with the inconvenience of this by never publishing any misformatted or marginal comment, but haven't got to that strict a level yet.
Can't see the wood for the trees?
David C,
If you read some of the posts I've both made and attempted recently you should know the only reason that some were delayed or not posted at all has been that I dared to comment on the delay, knowing exactly where and when it was delayed. Read the published time etc.
As Malcolm has written here, he agrees many of his posts are published when maybe he expects they won't be. Or the reverse. Why is that please?
If it is not bias or fear of publishing comments made about WD's operations then what is it mate?
As you'd know I've posted here over a long period as well as done volunteer editing for WD. Yet it is only when I post questioning the bias I perceive in favour of other contributors that my posts suddenly find a black hole. Why would that be? Chance? I don't think so.
Geoff has offered a suggestion and it has been ignored, by a site that needs money. Strange.
What's different about Geoff's proposal? He's already told you. It would be WD's unpublished posts. Many would love to see what is not published and doing so would generate both interst and more traffic. Can't see how that would be a problem.
David C, you should also know very well that most disappeared posts are not "bile" in the main. Nothing like the sites you generalise about.
Another example. I posted early this AM but that post remains unpublished. Yet I see posts written after mine that have been published. Mine was a response mainly to direct comments by WD on another post of mine so I cannt fathom why it would be held, maybe to remain unpublished.
Has WD become so precious it cannot take criticism? It's trivial, why make it such a secret or mystery? My unpublished post as yet remains so but David wrote that it would likely appear eventually anyway. Huh?
Lastly you are probably wonderng why some are querying the process etc. Your own comment on Geoff's is the reason as I see it.
Enough 2 Party barracking.
Richard: Ross, I was the one who didn't publish the last post you made, at 23:01 S.A. time. I would like it to be discussed amongst the moderators. Like a few of your posts lately, It contains a level of aspersion-casting on the personal integrity of WD moderators (an issue that Margo has strong views on) that I considered inappropriate to publish without consultation. From what you have said previously I doubt you would have acted differently when in similar shoes. The outcome of my action is not, as you seem to think, preordained.
There is no conspiracy, no favouritism at play here, and perhaps there are more important things going on to which we could be directing our energies.
The dangers of editorialising
Ross - hi, as far as Geoff's post goes, I just really should have shut up, I accept that. I'm pretty sure he was being facetious (sorry if I'm wrong!) and my bad attempt at responding in a humourous way fell as flat as a pancake. It's one of several reasons why I should always refrain from editorialising when I'm editing.
As for your previous post, it was a fairly convoluted explanation of why you thought one of the Editors had deliberately held up one of your posts. The 'hold' comment of the last unpublished post was 'what is this about?', because the editor really didn't know what the issue was. The editor you referred to discussed what had happened with the other editors, and has since responded directly to you by email, as I understand it.
Look, Ross, I totally agree that Webdiary needs to be transparent, and if we can't take criticism then we're not true to the Webdiary charter. The point is supposed to be robust and open debate in a safe environment for people of all political persuasions and temperaments.
The editors can't help but feel some sort of bias towards those they might be more inclined to agree with - we're human - but it's imperative for the integrity of the site that we don't exercise that bias in editing. I'm sure we slip from time to time, but I think everybody is pretty conscientious about it; it certainly gets discussed a lot between the editors, as you know.
Hopefully we can clear the air and start with a clean slate.
Deleting comments.
The publisher of the site has the responsibility for what is published and must therefore have the right to delete comments when it's considered appropriate.
If people don't like it then let them go somewhere else! I think keeping a record of deleted comments is rather a waste of time.
If they weren't worth publishing then why keep a record? Cheers!
David R: all comments submitted but not published currently remain on the database. This enables me (and Margo, if people want to take up the option to pursue a complaint with her) to check back on any accusations of bias (personal, political or whatever) or mishandling of a comment. The one thing we can't do is check back on what happened to a comment that was edited by removing blocks of text - amongst the many reasons why we generally DNP (do not publish) the whole comment when it contains dubious material, rather than taking out the offending phrase or paragraph.
Get your own bloody blog!
There's only one solution for the whingers: they need to set up their own blog and put in the work that maintaining a successful blog requires and take all the responsibility that goes with it. It costs virtually nothing so I have no idea why that don't choose that option rather than driving the Editors of WD crazy.
Hang on...perhaps that's what their mission is!
Fiona: Daniel, how can I possibly respond to your comment?
Rescue Has Arrived
So? What happened to my earthbreaking cash gusher of a conceptual model here?:
Submitted by Geoff Pahoff on January 25, 2007 - 4:29pm.
A small statistical input to the question of moderation. We currently have just over 900 unpublished comments on approval queue, ignoring the 4 or 5 waiting moderation, and covering the 13 months . Of those that were not and will not be published, just over 100 each were from Geoff Pahoff and [ * ], while coming up behind between 50 and 100 each were (in descending order): Jay White, Angela Ryan, C Parsons and mike lyvers. Given that Jay was banned for a couple of months, he probably has a strike rate in the Pahoff/ * championship podium class.
...
In that same 13 months, C Parsons had around 1000 comments published, and Geoff P around 700. It was open to anyone else to do the same (though preferably with a lower abuse rejection rate).
- David Roffey 16 January 2007 12.57 pm
*name deleted out of respect for the recently departed
I've just come up with a humdinger of a money-spinning idea for WD.
Publish all of the NFP'ed posts in a separate commercial venture -- either print and/or web. Then sell the publication. You know. Special! The Stuff WD Banned!! That sort of thing.
WD can protect its standards and principles by interposing an independent party in return for a royalty flow. WD and other parties would require an indemnity against defamation suits, which shouldn't be too difficult to organise given that the NFPee's would have been mainly defaming one another. And an agreed split of the royalties with defamees/NFPee's, proportionate to their contributions to the IP pool under exploitation will grease whatever pistons are still required to get the machine churning out the cash.
And will there be a demand for this material, I hear you ask? You bet. Human nature really. You will have the fattest payroll in the blogoshere by Christmas.
So there you go. Think about it.
As the undisputed Godfather of the Banned I feel an obligation to come up with these ideas from time to time, you understand. Just looking out for you guys.
David C: nice of you to look out for us, Geoff, but what would distinguish your proposed site from the millions of other bile-filled blogs on the Web?
Buying in
All of my posts are deliberately abusive (or a little seemingly thoughtful or - well it's just like cross-examining really - sometimes it doesn't do to undermine your case). Why do you publish some and not others?
Why am I not in the "A" league?
Richard: IMHO it's a matter of degrees of intensity - sort of an off-side rule type of thing. Moderating your posts, Malcolm, has been quite educational.
Favouritism
Richard: IMHO it's a matter of degrees of intensity
Come on Richard. It's all a matter of degrees of prejudice and you know it. Some of my honourably banned comments wouldn't stand muster in the same parade ground as many of Malcolm's abusive missives unjustly hung out for display on this site. I could say the same for many other commenters also unfairly dealt with by capricious editing and published when clearly a WD banning standard had been honestly and thoroughly achieved.
Richard:: I will not accept any accusations that I have at any time been biased in considering your posts or any other Webdiarisit's submissions. For you to say so is unworthy of you. I also do not accept that you have been treated with negative bias by any other Webdiary moderator.
It so happens, Geoff, that I like what you do, most of the time. That will get you no further special treatment than I would give any other Webdiarist.
The only thing I'm biased towards right now is the first coffee of the day.
Selling out
Always happy to educate anyone, dear boy.
I resent that comment David
I resent that comment David C.
David C: sorry Geoff, I shouldn't editorialise. I wasn't actually intending any offence to those who didn't get published, I was just thinking that sites full or un-moderated debate are a dime a dozen.