It's been almost 10 years since I started my weather blog SCOTT'S WORLD OF WEATHER. Back in late 2005, it was a more general blog about my observations of the world as a new father coupled with some random science and weather. About 5 years into it, my focus shifted to the technical side of weather, atmospheric science, forecasting and our perceptions/biases of both. It slowly became a diary of my thoughts about these technical subjects which, by their nature can, and have become self-indulgent to a certain degree. The last thing I want is to be so far drawn into a subject technically that the narrative I'm trying to convey becomes thickly bloated with esoteric terms and convoluted analysis. The last thing I want to do is lose people.
As a result, I believe many posts have lost sight of what the reader really wants. So I'm asking everyone who reads my blog what they would like me to cover and how they would like it done. Let me know what you like, what you don't. Let me know what was too hard to understand. Please let me know in the comment section below. Do you want more explanations,less explanations? Pictures? While I can't promise that each blog post will be clean and simplified for every one's taste (after all, the world of science is a very complex place), I will work on explaining each element a bit better.
Send me your comments at the bottom of this page or at the following locations:
Via email: scott.sabol@fox8.com
Facebook: http://facebook.com/scottsabolfanpage
Twitter: scottsabolfox8
Instagram: scottsabolpics
YOUR FEEDBACK IS WELCOME.
In advance, thank you!
Love the blog, thanks for taking the time to do it. I would like a more "Meteorology 101" approach to breaking down current patterns and trends. I can follow about 50% of what you attempt to explain when you get deep into the science. Guess I need the dummy breakdown.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a little less of the psychology of weather. I think you have covered the recency effect in great detail over the past few years.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll only mention recency effect when applicable. Met 101 approach is a definite possibility!
ReplyDeleteHey Scott, ty for taking the time to keep us informed and educating us. There probably a lot of young people out there that are just beginning their career in the weather sciences and your blog has become an excellent tool. Your probably giving all of us what we want, we just have to be patient and pick thru the stuff that we either don't want or don't understand. Maybe more weatherology 101, terms, definations, what happens when this happens kind of stuff. But that's just for me. All of this stuff takes up a tremendous amount of your time, and for that we are truly appreciative. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see more simple weather explanations. My dad was a reporter and he taught me that you have to get your point out in the first two paragraghs because you will loose the reader after that -- sometimes I find the blog posts going way to deep -- I tend to not want or have the time to read all the explanations and just want to find the answer to the question ! I do enjoy the posts when I can understand what they mean --
ReplyDeleteCheryl, thank you very much for your feedback. You made a very good point that's being more specific and to the point is probably more effective. However when it comes to writing science sometimes a more detailed explanation is warranted.
ReplyDeleteI like some of the detail you provide. I also follow Dr Jeff Master's daily blog on Underground.co, and I can understand specifics of what you present to your viewers. Keep up the good work for presenting the statistics as they are and what the outcome could be.
ReplyDelete