tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post1573680193341696473..comments2024-03-29T03:15:36.192-04:00Comments on Bayblab: The state of science bloggingKamelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15548259062576527751noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-56072586093111407992011-01-11T04:58:09.699-05:002011-01-11T04:58:09.699-05:00well there is some market for science talk among s...well there is some market for science talk among scientists, engineers, and educated professionals. However, they constitute a minority of the general population, of blog readers, and of community college students.kinds of catshttp://kindsofcats.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-4566626298392043062008-03-01T18:19:00.000-05:002008-03-01T18:19:00.000-05:00RBH wrote:"With a few notable exceptions, this thr...RBH wrote:<BR/>"With a few notable exceptions, this thread (especially including the OP) is remarkably data-free for allegedly coming from a bunch of scientists. Interesting that a meta-thread on the supposed flaws of Scienceblogs should be so bereft of references to relevant data."<BR/><BR/>Indeed, and perusing the archives show very few purely scientific bloggings here.Doppelgangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-90660415171233444892008-02-29T10:12:00.000-05:002008-02-29T10:12:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-75562505445097087362008-02-28T18:27:00.000-05:002008-02-28T18:27:00.000-05:00Excellent post, could have been mine :-)But seriou...Excellent post, could have been mine :-)<BR/>But seriously, there are relatively few scientists out there, at least when compared to the blog reader in general. While the average guy in the net has no problem understanding ID bashing, really appreciating blogs like <A HREF="http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/" REL="nofollow"> Mystery Rays</A> (my favorite science blog) is something completely different. <BR/>I wouldn't feel too disappointed to only see pop-science blogs among the top-scorers. If I am reading a good blog, I don't care if thousands of others are with me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-63715438971284608652008-02-28T14:44:00.000-05:002008-02-28T14:44:00.000-05:00Bayman, I think this post is a little disingenuous...Bayman, I think this post is a little disingenuous, as if you expect blogging to be substantive, scientists to be purely scientific, and substantive science to be popular. <BR/><BR/>There is some market for science talk among scientists, engineers, and educated professionals. However, they constitute a minority of the general population, of blog readers, and of community college students. <BR/><BR/>The most lucrative market for scienceblog advertisers, science news providers, and low-grade science education are barely literate culture warriors bent on sticking it to the nearest redneck bible-thumper. <BR/><BR/>When someone like PZ is speaking ex cathedra on social and cultural topics, that's like mother's milk to the insecure and ignorant idealist who needs a little "science" to shore up his ego.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10611514851360074283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-91660962413618176102008-02-28T12:13:00.000-05:002008-02-28T12:13:00.000-05:00I am coming to this late, primarily because I only...I am coming to this late, primarily because I only even learned about this after "A Blog Around The Clock" - http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/02/what_is_a_science_blog.php - linked to us in his response, but part of the issue is you're using a rather narrow field of 'science blogging.'<BR/><BR/>Certainly by Technorati or postgenomic (which uses Technorati and only seems to include a few independent blogs and then all of scienceblogs.com) it looks dire if you want science to be science. <BR/><BR/>I don't know how many readers the bloggers on LiveScience have, for example, but I bet it is a lot. Like them, since we do not write for other bloggers but instead the public (most of whom are not linking to us in Technorati) our nearly 2 million articles read this month, none of which have to do with politics, religion, sex or music, are pretty sizeable chunks of readers.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, NatureBlogs does not break out individual bloggers but, in looking at their roster, they are pretty darn outstanding. <BR/><BR/>Let's not begrudge anyone at scienceblogs their success in the blogosphere. There are some writers there I would put up against anyone in the world. But they are not the extent of science blogging, much less science writing ( or "the Borg" as he good-naturedly referred to them in his response to this article) - I think they do a ton of good and PZ Meyers and Tara Smith and Shelley Batts and others there genuinely believe in the science community.<BR/><BR/>They are getting it done every single day for a long period of time in a way that, really, is beyond impressive in scope.<BR/><BR/>I mentioned this same thing over there but it deserves to be repeated. There IS a culture war regarding science and if they are fighting it, that means you (and we) don't have to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-83139094954654656732008-02-28T11:08:00.000-05:002008-02-28T11:08:00.000-05:00With a few notable exceptions, this thread (especi...With a few notable exceptions, this thread (especially including the OP) is remarkably data-free for allegedly coming from a bunch of scientists. Interesting that a meta-thread on the supposed flaws of Scienceblogs should be so bereft of references to relevant data.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-47003891728105715612008-02-28T11:03:00.000-05:002008-02-28T11:03:00.000-05:00By what mechanism does ridiculing a creationist ad...By what mechanism does ridiculing a creationist advance the cause of evolution? Perhaps it can convince some poeple who are already on the line but at the risk of alienating a good number of poeple from science in general, which is much broader than just evolution. It's a difficult situation. I feel it's best not to resort to insults, stick with facts, explain and popularise science, teaching is arguably much more effective.Anonymous Cowardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315733940344340689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-75228417072875550022008-02-28T11:02:00.000-05:002008-02-28T11:02:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymous Cowardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315733940344340689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-16990846531042740652008-02-28T10:19:00.000-05:002008-02-28T10:19:00.000-05:00I made it about halfway through this thread and wi...I made it about halfway through this thread and will read the rest later, but wanted to say that... about the evo/creo stuff, it's important because not everyone already agrees with it. I know that you and I will roll our eyes and scroll through it. But there are a lot of people who are genuinely interested in science, who also genuinely believe in the six-day creation. It's good to talk about it, and not just preach to the choir. But you all knew that. Right?muse142https://www.blogger.com/profile/08581372124820663981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-91880320820125054002008-02-28T00:30:00.000-05:002008-02-28T00:30:00.000-05:00There's a recurring theme in many of the comments ...There's a recurring theme in many of the comments so far that blogging on religion, creationism and politics have nothing to do with science. What utter bollocks.<BR/><BR/>I truly don't understand how a predominantly U.S. group of scientists and science communicators can still think that the advancement of science can be separated from the need to face the challenges of irrational religions (bit of a tautology, there...), cdesign proponentsists and political interference head on, with vigor and forcefulness.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes (often) a well worded 'rant' is necessary, and sometimes ridicule is the best option. There're only so many times that the obvious can be patiently explained to the oblivious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-41566781795686800192008-02-27T22:18:00.000-05:002008-02-27T22:18:00.000-05:00Everybody just calm down and read Bad Astronomy fo...Everybody just calm down and read <A HREF="http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/" REL="nofollow">Bad Astronomy</A> for a while. The universe is very soothing.Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07835079257789098964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-1939703545786428662008-02-27T21:55:00.000-05:002008-02-27T21:55:00.000-05:00Talking only about peer-reviewed research limits y...Talking only about peer-reviewed research limits your opportunities to connect to your readers. If I get to know you well enough through your blog to think we may be interested in some of the same things, I'm more likely to read your science reporting on topics I wouldn't have been gung ho about on my own. Perhaps you should look to your methods if you want to change your results.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-66431635644262377042008-02-27T20:47:00.000-05:002008-02-27T20:47:00.000-05:00I'm writing the news that I'd like to read.I'm writing the news that I'd like to read.Monadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12523329434641725631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-15182536272672446062008-02-27T19:05:00.000-05:002008-02-27T19:05:00.000-05:00And calling someone a juvenile cumstain does no on...<I>And calling someone a juvenile cumstain does no one on either side of the debate any favours.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I don't know if I'm on a "side" in a "debate", but it sure made me laugh my fucking ass off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-23894246995307983762008-02-27T18:38:00.000-05:002008-02-27T18:38:00.000-05:00So, finally making their way out from underneath t...So, finally making their way out from underneath the pile of "You're just bitter and jealous because you're not good enough to join ScienceBlogs and that's the only reason you're whining" complaints are some points that would actually be worth debating...<BR/><BR/>1. Seriously, given the set-up of ScienceBlogs, and particularly the terms and conditions of making posts, as highlighted in someone else's comment form (I can't see any SB member posting under Creative Commons, and the total handover of all intellectual property rights concerns me), does the presence of Seed magazine and a financial incentive based on traffic affect the content of the blogs? I personally get more hits when I talk about barnacle penises than I do talking about sauropod morphometrics. Does that mean I talk about barnacle penises more? No. Would I talk about barnacle penises more if there was an extra $10 a month for me? Hell yes. Whether or not you think there's too much science or too little science, this is a valid query.<BR/><BR/>2. Popular though the anti-creationism/anti-idiocy/anti-Bush posts are, do they detract from the science, whether it is the rational discussion of the above issues, life as a scientist in a particular political climate, or the hard science itself? And to an outsider, does the scientific blogging community as a whole look okay for it? Does the individual blogger look okay for it, or is there a chance, however small, that it might turn moderates off? As a hypothetical example - a blogger campaigning for pro-choice laws and greater accessibility to contraception will win no friends among the more liberal members of the Catholic church if they say that all Catholics are retards.<BR/><BR/>3. Almost in a self-fulfilling prophecy, any criticism of ScienceBlogs and its structure/ethos has been dismissed a priori as "sour grapes". But there is evidence that a fair few people have <I>declined</I> invitations. Doesn't that merit some discussion? By effectively stating that any critic wishes they were good enough to be on ScienceBlogs, a two-tier community within the science blogosphere is allowed to form. The perceived "upper tier" is all the "good" science bloggers on ScienceBlogs, and the perceived "lower tier" is all the "bad" science bloggers who aren't on ScienceBlogs. This makes ScienceBlogs not an aggregated community, but a seal of approval, which I am not wholly convinced correlates exactly with the quality of the blog.<BR/><BR/>4. There is a subtle difference between blogging about science and being a scientist who blogs (this has been mentioned before, on a number of ScienceBlogs blogs and non-ScienceBlogs blogs). The expectation from ScienceBlogs is that it will contain the former, but the reality is approaching the latter. What is the happy medium? Should ScienceBlogs (and science blogs) contain the entire spectrum, or is there a point at which one ceases to be a science blog? My husband occasionally blogs about climate change, colony collapse disorder and astronomy. Probably about 3% of his posts are on science topics. But he's not a science blogger. Is one a science blogger if one says one is? Or is there a rule-of-thumb percentage of posts? Or is it simply an editorial line? What is the definition here?<BR/><BR/>All of these are valid points, and points that regardless of your opinion one way or another, ought to be able to be debated without descending into <I>ad hominem</I> attacks on both sides. The very fact that the science blogging community is polarised on this issue shows that there is something worth discussing here. And calling someone a <A HREF="http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/shorter-bayblab/#comment-265" REL="nofollow">juvenile cumstain</A> does no one on either side of the debate any favours.Juliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04695173188736074202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-48585321556490815932008-02-27T18:32:00.000-05:002008-02-27T18:32:00.000-05:00PZ writes: "And yeah, it's true that I don't post ...PZ writes: "And yeah, it's true that I don't post as much science as I'd like right now. The science posts are much harder work, and some of that effort is currently being siphoned off into professional writing,"<BR/><BR/>I think this is exactly right. It's hard to post as often as PZ does, and produce an interesting blog about just science. It's well known that blogs which post less frequently get fewer readers, so I don't think that the phenomenon you describe is unexpected or even bad. Of course, I subscribed to PZ's RSS feed for a while, until I found that I got bored by the repetitiveness of it. I'm an atheist, humanist, and I certainly think that the theory of evolution is correct, but I don't really need these points driven home every time I open Google Reader.<BR/><BR/>I'm subscribed to about 30 science blog RSS feeds, and most of them post less than once a week. But I think the average interest to me is much higher than another creationist bashing. Of course, to each his own, so I say, who cares. <BR/><BR/>I highly doubt that most people would want to read my blogroll (mostly populated by either cooking blogs or fairly technical math and computer science blogs), but that's why it's mine. If you don't like most of the ScienceBlogs, then read something else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-92199198971145813452008-02-27T18:15:00.000-05:002008-02-27T18:15:00.000-05:00To my reading it did come across as a personal att...<I>To my reading it did come across as a personal attack.</I><BR/>I kind of got that impression...<BR/>If I can turn around a play Devil's Advocate here for a moment, I think Bayman's core complaint is valid, even if it may be <I>wrong</I>.<BR/>I think part of what he's trying to get at is that having an overwhelmingly well-known blog is a bit like having monopoly power over a market - one's actions in that case have much more impact. An obscure blog claiming to be about science could be nothing but a stream of extremely vile and off-topic obscenities, and yet have much less effect on how "science blogging" appears to the rest of the world than even the most minor editorial aspects of top-rated blogs like PZ Myers' at the most famous group of science-blogging sites that is "scienceblogs.com", which is obviously why that particular blog is being scrutinized here.<BR/>The question of whether a blog that seems to the poster to be primarily about politics and religion should be considered a "science" blog is a legitimate one I think, even if the answer is "yes, it should". Similarly, it's not entirely irrational to wonder if the fact that more traffic equals more money affects the content of the posts, even though at this point it seems like that concern is pretty well taken care of, too (i.e. it seems pretty clear that nobody's getting rich off of it, no matter how much traffic they're getting.)<BR/><I>"I suspect the author just wishes he had anything like the number of readers PZ does."</I><BR/>Who wouldn't? Heck, I know *I* do!...It may be a factor - the inter-connectedness of the scienceblogs.com tribe really <I>does</I> represent a high barrier to competing for attention by blogs outside the system - but I don't think it's really the primary reason for the original post here.Ivan Privacihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14876109105618900667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-70426869526279110582008-02-27T18:13:00.000-05:002008-02-27T18:13:00.000-05:00Matt,I was asking a question. To put it a differe...Matt,<BR/>I was asking a question. To put it a different way: What are reasonable expectations for ScienceBlogs(tm) and science blogs in general? If we're going to pick on perceived flaws or level accusations about what is or isn't a correct assumption shouldn't we try to answer that question first (again, as I alluded to in my first comment).Kamelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15548259062576527751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-49670366285519825452008-02-27T17:57:00.000-05:002008-02-27T17:57:00.000-05:00Yes, Scienceblogs.com bloggers are self-referentia...Yes, Scienceblogs.com bloggers are self-referential. This is not surprising to anyone familiar with Livejournal, which has a similar dynamic.<BR/><BR/>More importantly, and remaining unaddressed, is the impression all the "creationists are teh stupid!!1!" posts are giving to the non-scientists who visit scienceblogs.com. They really are getting the impression that scientists are attacking religion. PZ's shrillness worries me too, but I don't think he could stop the train he's on if he wanted to, now. Gene Expression had a fairly lively community before they joined, so perhaps that's why they've remained interesting.<BR/><BR/>You put a voice to a sentiment I've heard from several other people who've declined to become a part of scienceblogs.com. I think the people you singled out are feeling a little attacked, which is unfortunate, but perhaps also a sign that your comments hit a little close to home.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-47476024859098875772008-02-27T17:48:00.000-05:002008-02-27T17:48:00.000-05:00The idea that SB bloggers are automatically biased...The idea that SB bloggers are automatically biased towards hack writing by getting a bit of dough is silly. It's not like ScienceBlogs is some sort of indecent proposal.<BR/><BR/>Considering that SB is directly connected with Seed, whose tagline is "Science is Culture," I don't see what the big deal is with SB bloggers discussing whatever interests them.<BR/><BR/>ScienceBlogs is about viewing the world with a scientific cultural mindset. The posts don't have to be strictly about research because the culture of science is broader than just the research. Science also reaches into politics and sociocultural issues.<BR/><BR/>This is the broad view of science is what I love about Seed magazine and what I love about ScienceBlogs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-31518303487256870832008-02-27T17:43:00.000-05:002008-02-27T17:43:00.000-05:00I'm having my discussion with rob over at DrugMonk...I'm having my discussion with rob over at DrugMonkey's place but here is at least a n of 1 retort to the accusation that bloggers at ScienceBlogs are insular:<BR/><BR/>Terra Sig <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2007/12/cancer_research_carnival_4_and.php" REL="nofollow">linked early</A> to and sang the praises of the Cancer Research Blog Carnival founded here at bayblab.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-83950278173115553962008-02-27T17:30:00.000-05:002008-02-27T17:30:00.000-05:00Epicanis said:"I don't think the original post was...Epicanis said:<BR/><BR/>"I don't think the original post was supposed to be a personal attack. I thought the central thesis of the original post was really just that scienceblogs.com, being the overwhelmingly dominant collection of blogs which are labeled as being about science, spends a lot of time blogging about religion and politics (outside the subject of science, that is - I at least can certainly see that there are plenty of places where those topics DO overlap with science, and don't think they should be ignored.) The complaint, as I read it, is that the overwhelmingly dominant scienceblogs give the impression that all science bloggers do is pick on religion and complain about right-wing politicians."<BR/><BR/>To my reading it did come across as a personal attack. It also came across as woefully ill-informed, and given the typical content of this blog, as rather hypocritical as well. The comment about bloggers at ScienceBlogs being paid is hardly news after all, and to me just smacks of jealousy. "You mean to say people who are actually any good at this can get paid ? Mwaaaahhhhh, why not me!". How the comments about PZ Myers can be taken as anything less than a personal insult escapes me. I suspect the author just wishes he had anything like the number of readers PZ does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-18028662539635051672008-02-27T17:10:00.000-05:002008-02-27T17:10:00.000-05:00"Thanks but no thanks Matt. I like a lot of the bl..."Thanks but no thanks Matt. I like a lot of the blogs so I'm going keep reading them. I like discussion and critical thinking so I'm going to keep saying what I think, critical or not. I hope bayblab visitors will continue to be skeptical and critical of the content of my posts as well."<BR/><BR/>Then you would seem to be one of those silly people who bitches because they like the sound of their own voice.<BR/><BR/>"No kidding. I'm guessing that's because they write about science. Also, you forgot Carl Zimmer. I love his stuff. Better science writing than most science bloggers, myself included."<BR/><BR/>Well your original post indicated you were in fact not aware of this. <BR/>Why did you totally fail to mention Ed Brayton, Matt Nisbett or Chris Mooney ? None are scientists and none write about science per se. <BR/><BR/>I suggest you do your homework before gobbing off in future. It will stop those of us who had never heard of you before from now knowing you as a clueless hypocrit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14815894.post-12096814790038719942008-02-27T17:06:00.001-05:002008-02-27T17:06:00.001-05:00Going down your front page and checking out the su...Going down your front page and checking out the subjects you post on here, I find<BR/>- no blogging on peer-reviewed research<BR/>- two posts on "The Gospel according to Darwin," which are certainly intended to be taken as responses to creationism/ID<BR/>- several humorous bits only marginally involved with science<BR/>- several pieces on the intersection of politics and science<BR/>- several pieces on how other media or other parts of the blogosphere (including ScienceBlogs) are covering issues.<BR/>- relatively few links to other blogs<BR/><BR/>OK, so there's not much personal anecdote blogging. Otherwise, you seem to be covering much of the same territory as ScienceBlogs, but with less in-depth science coverage.<BR/><BR/>On top of that, you publish in white on black background, which is much more difficult to read for any period.<BR/><BR/>So, why should I bother to come back here, thereby increasing your blog's status?<BR/><BR/>chezjake (posting anonymously because your Open ID option is not recognizing my LJ url.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com