November 02, 2007
Blog comments
As readers will see from the last 2 blog entries, comments of a defamatory nature made against organisations or individuals can get the blog owners into legal trouble. We will have to be more vigilant in future.
Posted by Paul at 09:20 PM
September 28, 2007
Blog Posts and Comments Policy
Blog Posts are for discussion - we don't necessarily agree with the content. Comments of a personal nature, particularly by unverifiable or anonymous posters, may be deleted.
Regards,
Paul Biggs
Posted by Paul at 05:58 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack
January 06, 2007
Bird-dropping Spider
Not a picture of immediate beauty, but consider its design a little more closely. The spider has laid down a foundation of very white silk, resembling the character of a bird-dropping and has positioned itself centrally, with glossy-white carapace and strategically-darkened fore-legs, creating a marvellous depiction of that which both repels predators and attracts prey.
As with so many lessons that can be learnt from nature, this evolutionary model of competitive success can be seen in human behaviours, where offensive conduct repels and quite possibly by intent.
The weblog rules explain that properly monitoring comments would be a full time job. Given the growing readership and concern from some readers, comments that are spam, abusive, defamatory, off-topic or repetitive may be deleted. We are advised that it won't always be fair and asked that if we want to make more than five posts in any given 24 hour period, it would be great if we really had something new, important and informative to say that sixth, seventh and eighth time.
As a gathering place for a great many people with a common interest in politics and the environment, we might strive for tolerance and respect … even when a comment is akin to bird-droppings.
Posted by neil at 03:13 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack
April 13, 2006
First Birthday & Going Fishing
This blog is a year old tomorrow, the 14th April.
Interestingly there are comments at that first post from Walter Starck, Tim Lambert and Michael Duffy.
I have learnt a lot over the last year, especially about people and how they view different issues, and the knowledge and prejudices they often bring to a discussion.
I have been amazed at the web traffic this blog has generated. My Alexa rating is now 91,696. If this is any reflection of comparative traffic, my blog is now one of the most popular political blogs in Australia according to analyses in January by Tim Blair and Tim Lambert, click here. In fact, while my Alexa rating has improved dramatically over the last few months moving from 482,108 to 91,696, the other blogs mentioned at that post have not moved much with Tim Blair now on 42,756 (was 50,087), Catallaxy now on 238,196 (was 225,665) and Gravatt.org on 482,108 (was 488,606).
I would like to thank National Forum for hosting this site and advertising the blog at The Domain.
I am going to start using the subscribe facility at this website to send out a monthly email. I will perhaps include links to a few of the best blog posts for that month and information about what's happening and where I might be speaking. So please log on, and register your email address by clicking here.
The blog costs me time and money and I am considering placing some advertisements at the site or asking for sponsorship.
The blog and website might be useful for advertising upcoming conferences in environment and related areas - doesn't anybody know anybody who organises lots of conferences who might be interested?
The blog Larvatus Prodeo has a paypay for donations, maybe I could also add something like that?
There have been some comments, particularly at the global warming threads, suggesting I am pushing a particular perspective in my posts while others claim that I am too negative and always questioning rather than providing answers.
In response:
1. I repeat my offer to post essays at this blog from those with a very different perspective. I have posted different perspectives on whaling (including from Greenpeace and Libby Eyre) and I am more than happy to do the same on global warming.
2. According to Wikipedia: The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. It was designed to force one to examine his own beliefs and the validity of such beliefs. In fact, Socrates once said, "I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others."
Anyway, thanks for sharing your prejudices, evidence, insights, and stories with me over the last year - and may the reef be as beautiful, and autumn as warm, in April next year.
I leave tomorrow for a few days of camping on the New South Wales mid-north coast. But I will be back.
Best wishes for Easter, from the beach, East Coast of Australia.
Posted by jennifer at 11:46 AM | Comments (27) | TrackBack
March 31, 2006
Blair Announces New 'Politics & Environment Wiki'
Jennifer has kindly asked me to write a few introductory words as part of the launch of the new 'Politics and Environment Wiki'.
As one who knows bugger-all about Wikis I guess I am eminently qualified... a bit like asking some of the commentators at this blog to say a few words about global warming!
This PEW (Politics and Environment Wiki) will provide an opportunity for interested and knowledgeable persons to actively contribute to the knowledge base concerning various aspects of the environment with special emphasis on the interaction between the political and quasi-political process and the environment.
Since I started reading and contributing, albeit in a small way, to this BLOG it became obvious to Jennifer and others that amongst all the vociferous outbursts, put-downs and in some cases outright nastiness, there is a lot of good information being posted on the site.
PEW will enable this information to be stored, changed and made more accessible to a wider audience. Of course the BLOG will stay and hopefully some of the spin-offs from the BLOG will encompass the identification of subjects worthy for inclusion in PEW and the clarification and development of ideas and thoughts prior to their inclusion.
However for PEW to realize its potential, certain protocols need to be observed.
While the finer details are spelled out in the site, contributors should remember that the underlying premise is that PEW exists for disseminating and storing knowledge and making it available to a wide audience. It is not for displaying one's knowledge of invective or one-upmanship. It also becomes rather pointless as the articles show no author's name.
So I guess the ball is at our feet and it's up to us to make the best of the opportunity provided by Jennifer. So log in and create an account.
Blair
PS A nice little article about Wiki can be found here.
Posted by jennifer at 01:39 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
February 10, 2006
Blog Update, Comments and Rules
I began this blog in April last year. More and more people are visiting the site. I was surprised to see that there were 7,458 unique visitors to the site last month (January 2006), they came a total of 20,677 times and looked at 59,939 pages generating 97,378 hits.
Last month the most popular posts were on whaling and of course climate change. I thank those who contributed to both discussions.
This blog is a forum that encourages diverse opinion. There is some truth in the comment by Walter Lippman, "Where all think alike, no one thinks very much."
Interestingly very few of the people who visit this site ever make comment. Some readers tell me they enjoy reading the comments from others and learn from the debates. Others tell me they never read the comments because they are too often "ugly", "ignorant" and "defamatory".
Properly monitoring comments would be a full time job - a job for which I have neither the time, nor inclination. But given the growing readership and concern from some readers, I am going to start deleting more comments. It won't always be fair - because properly monitoring comments would be a fulltime job. I may delete comments that are spam, abusive, defamatory, off-topic or repetitive.
I have looked at the rules at Online Opinion and there are some that are perhaps relevant to this blog including limiting the number of comments per person. At Online Opinion readers are allowed a maximum of five comments in any given 24 hour period and no more than two comments per thread in any given 24 hour period.
Now such rules could really limit debate and discussion at this blog!
So I don't intend to implement them. However, if you want to make more than five posts in any given 24 hour period, it would be great if you really had something new, important and informative to say that sixth, seventh and eighth time.
On the issue of names, Ian Castles and Roger Kalla are real people who use their real names to comment at this blog. They have families and reputations. I know some people will insist on using a nom de plume - and perhaps for good reason - but they shouldn't necessarily expect the same level of respect, at least not from me.
It is obviously much easier to be flippant when you have nothing, or very little, at risk. The person commenting anonymously can easily dismiss and discard any mistake or misleading comment - along with 'the name' they were using and email address they were using.
In closing, thanks for visiting this blog and for being apart of the information exchange. Do come back and please leave a comment.
Posted by jennifer at 06:09 PM | Comments (56)
January 19, 2006
How This Blog Rates
If you want to know how popular a blog is you can go to Alexa and check its rating.
A week or so ago blogger Tim Lambert listed the 'Top ten right-wing Australian blogs' based on their Alexa-rank.
The lower the number the more popular the blog.
Tim Blair blitzed the field with a score of 50,087, followed by Catallaxy at 225,663 and then Gravatt.org at 488,606. Number 10 at a whooping 3,394,951 was the Australian Libertarian society.
A reader of this blog sent me an email asking why I wasn't listed.
Based on this morning's rating I would have apparently come in third, with an Alexa rating of 477,565 (and 311,301 in the last week).
I reckon I wasn't listed because this is not a right-wing blog.
Tim Blair has done a list of popular left-wing Australian blogs and I'm not there either. Then again this is not really a left-wing blog.
This has really developed into a blog for progressive environmentalists.
After all, as Professor David McKnight has explained, the good guys are always the progressives.
Posted by jennifer at 07:44 PM | Comments (42)
July 25, 2005
Censoring at this Blog
I have received an email accusing me of censoring comment at this web-log.
The writer of the email could not have know that about 8 comments from yesterday afternoon did not get approved (they included comment from David V, Ender, Louis H and David W). My apologies.
The problem was probably in part a consequence of the two-stage approval process that sits behind this web-log and perhaps compounded by this site being down (provider/server problem) for at least 30 minutes around 6pm last night.
I do sometimes censor (i.e. not post an entire comment), but usually let the writer of the email know - unless it is spam.
I sometimes edit.
I have previously posted a piece about 'rules' and 'name calling'see http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000675.html (19th June).
Some of the comment following this post was interesting and useful. I think I have come to the conclusion that:
Messages that are spam, abusive, defamatory or off-topic should not be posted.
According to the 'site traffic' statistics for this site, there were about 2,000 unique visits to this site last month (i.e. about 2,000 people read this blog at least once, some many, many times). It is perhaps surprising (and a bit boring) that there was not comment from more of a cross-section of this potential community.
Perhaps some readers are frightened that their ideas/comments will be 'attacked' by a global warming skeptic or believer? There are contributors to both sides of this debate that hold very strong views, take comment personally and are not very sensitive.
Posted by jennifer at 11:34 AM | Comments (3)
June 19, 2005
Name Calling
I dislike editing comments from contributors to this site. I have done so recently to try and remove at least some of the personal attack - from more than one contributor. The trouble is that it is a slippery slope - both ways. You don't edit and a wad of comment ends up being 'nasty'. You do edit and you 'destroy' the point that was being made amongst the name calling?
And then this morning I was emailed the link to Prof Bob Carter's speech to the Melbourne Rotary Club last week in which, perhaps tired of being called a 'climate skeptic', he has labelled belief in human-induced climate change 'Hansenism'.
When is name calling OK? Can it be a useful short-hand?
Anyway, perhaps this is just the excuse I need to stimulate discussion about how to 'moderate' this site. What should the rules be?
When I edited a post some weeks ago the angry 'commenter' emailed me asking for 'the rules'. I lamely replied something along the lines that "I edit out the personal attacks when they don't progress the argument".
Your suggestions?
Perhaps you know of a site with some 'good rules' we could borrow?
Posted by jennifer at 08:56 AM | Comments (22)