Nah, run 'em!
This post has been superseded.
We've been informed of three issues regarding the "counting writers and readers" post from Monday:
1) We're told that the "duplicated readers" apparently only exist in the online paper, not the paper paper. This new information appears to be correct although we need to investigate more carefully.
2) The post can be interpreted as suggesting that there were shady dealings in counting writers - that the "919" gives the impression of invalidating the "over 3000" - which wasn't our intent at all, but we now see that it could be read that way. We have absolutely no reason to believe that the "over 3000" is anything but solid (i.e. we consider it solid)
So, please to take the post with several pounds of salt until further investigation is completed.
Thanks to the gentlemen who brought these issues to our attention.
Disclosure: the pronoun that we are using is the "royal we".
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.