Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.
Looking for stuff about birds?
Lean more about lions
The following is a repost of a Guest Post by Stephanie Zvan of Almost Diamonds.
Background
On February 26, Anonymous Coward at Bayblab suggested that popular ScienceBloggers like PZ Myers (Pharyngula) needed more science content in order to be counted as a science blog. In the first comment on that post, DrugMonkey pointed out that there was plenty of science on Pharyngula, and the matter rested there (sort of, once the author proclaimed the post only an experiment).
Then, on May 12, rommy told PZ Myers (in a comment on Pharyngula), "Sorry PZ - I have long thought that your blog was one of the weaker science ones - too much ranting not enough science - go take some lessons off Darren at Tetrapod Zoology on how to write a science blog."
Obviously, the question of whether Pharyngula is a science blog needed to be settled. Greg issued the challenge and I, because I am a complete geek who can't walk away from piles of data when it might answer a question, took it on.
Sorting the Posts
I chose five blogs to look at. Pharyngula had to be included, of course, and Greg suggested he be as well. rommy held up Tetrapod Zoology as an example of a blog that was doing everything right. Bayblab pointed to Cognitive Daily as another. And it only seemed fair to include Bayblab as well. In the interest of full disclosure, I read Pharyngula, Greg's blog, and Cognitive Daily regularly. Cognitive Daily was my gateway drug for ScienceBlogs. I've read Tetrapod Zoology and Bayblab occasionally if I've seen a link to a post that looked interesting.
I picked February, the shortest month, to make my life easier. The effect was somewhat mitigated by this being a leap year. I made no attempt to determine whether February was a typical blogging month for any of the bloggers I chose.
Because I wanted to know what people were talking about in more detail than whether they were talking about science, politics, science politics or something else, I expanded on Greg's suggested categories. I ended up with eight. Brief descriptions are included below. If a post's content was mixed, the higher category on this list prevailed. I made no attempt to grade the posts on amount, depth or quality of information included.
Post Categories
Original Science Content: Summaries of current knowledge, presentations of the blogger's research, definition and discussion of terms.
Other Science Content: Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research, reporting and linking to research results, announcing future research projects, links to educational essays or videos.
History of Science: Who discovered what and when.
A Life in Science: Life as a scientist.
Politics of Science: Controlling what is funded and taught.
Other Politics: Not directly science-related.
Blogkeeping: Meta-blogging, blogrolls, requests for information, links to interesting blog posts, promoting and reporting on the blogger's appearances on the web and in person.
General: Other items that strike the fancy or the nerve of the blogger.
Not that inclusion in a category such as Blogkeeping or General does not mean that the post was not full of geekery that would appeal to scientists and science fans. Also, events, interviews and podcasts promoted by the bloggers frequently contained science content that wasn't counted for this study because it was not on the blogger's own site.
Results and Discussion
What did I learn? Greg posts a lot. Well, okay, I knew that already, but categorizing 310 posts for a single, short month is still painful. Pharyngula boasted just over half that many at 175, with Bayblab at 43, Cognitive Daily at 17 and Tetrapod Zoology at 16.
Aside from that? How much science content you see on each blog depends on how much you limit your definition of science content. If you only include Original Science Content, Tetrapod Zoology is your winner, with Pharyngula and Cognitive Daily suffering by comparison. Add Other Science Content, however, and Greg pulls away from the pack, while the other four even out somewhat.
Add the other science-related categories, and Greg and PZ make the others look like total slugabeds. (Yes, that's a technical term.)
So it would seem that the real burden of the complaint is not so much that Pharyngula doesn't contain enough science, but rather that it contains too much other stuff. While I don't know that "too much" was within the scope of my assignment, Pharyngula, Greg's blog and Bayblab do contain much higher percentages of non-science content than Tetrapod Zoology and Cognitive Daily.
Again, please note that much of what is labeled here as non-science may still hold special appeal for science fans. Additionally, at least on ScienceBlogs, readers may use feeds that exclude much of the non-science content.
Conclusions
Once again, we discover that there are differences between bloggers. What hasn't been borne out is the idea that writing about things other than science requires that there be less science content in a blog. In fact, prolific science bloggers tend to blog prolifically about science as well.
There are two questions I'd still like to see addressed: Why is diversity among bloggers a bad thing to some people, and who thinks that telling a blogger what to write is productive?
Technology
Comments
Bwa-ha-ha. As my content load is similar to Greg Laden's, I rather like his approach: some science, plenty of links to interesting science elsewhere, some anecdote, and a little bit of everything else. At one time I posted a minimum of three times a day, but I found that the quality was suffering.
Posted by: Monado | May 13, 2009 9:39 PM
Are these lies, damned lies or statistics? ;-)
I know many fellow readers who just tire of the politics. I'm an atheist and lover of science but, sorry, I just don't buy into the progressive utopia solution that for some reason seems to infect the minds of many science bloggers. Personally, I'm a registered Independent who voted for Obama. I think all of the ideological areas have something of value to offer, but have pretty much given up on both the Reps (for becoming the party of religious wackaloons) and Dems (for becoming... something... they're turgid and tiresome in their own special way).
I was reading a review of the new Trek movie, and the author began to compare the Romulans to the Bush Administration. It was unfunny and forced, and I'm someone who wished for many years Bush would choke on another pretzel, and take it all the way this time. We just want a break of partisan bullcrap. Seriously, it's everywhere.
and who thinks that telling a blogger what to write is productive
"Rommy" is entitled to his or her opinion, and is entitled to express it on an open forum. It's not entirely without merit, and Stephanie is not the final word on how productive the comment was. I noticed the same lack of real science content as I generally hit the "last 24 hours" page first.
Posted by: NiteRydr | May 13, 2009 11:28 PM
The issue that is lost among people who complain to a blogger about "not enough science" is that the nominally "non-science" content brings in readership for people who were not necessarily looking for a science blogger. Drawing people in for non-science contact has what I would hope to be the effect of reaching out to people who would otherwise never see the science content.
Since this articles was originally posted before the "frackin' cracker" incident, I can certainly tell by the number of comments at Pharyngula that there are now people who read PZ's science posts, and learn about say, evo-devo, than there were before.
The other issue that is constantly lost on "not enough science" "topping from the bottom" "passive aggressive" commenters, as that they can skip past the posts that they don't want to read. It's the healthy thing to do.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | May 14, 2009 4:47 AM
I should learn to preview before I hit "post:"
Change to:
Since this article was originally posted before the "frackin' cracker" incident, I can certainly tell by the number of comments at Pharyngula that there are now more people who read PZ's science posts, and learn about say, evo-devo, than there were before.
Posted by: Name withheld out of embarrassment | May 14, 2009 4:51 AM
Mike: good point. This blog also picked up additional readers, skyrocketing from 11 to 17 regulars.
And the sciency nature of scienceblogs trend continues...Last 24 hours page shows from the posting of the present post to the ... ah, present (when I'm writing this content) to show mostly science posts (non science posts marked):
Calendar laser-etched onto fingernails
Even more recently extinct, island dwelling crocodilians
Swine flu: is there something unusual about the symptoms?
Science with Jenny McCarthy
Photo of the Day #581: Cheetah
links for 2009-05-14 (to science posts elsewhere)
Simon Singh Public Support Meeting - next Monday
Clock Quotes NOT SCIENCE
"there's always more to do..." NOT SCIENCE
Crayon Physics Review
Keck School of Medicine commencement speech (MAYBE NOT BUT IT IS A MEDICAL SCHOOL)
Getting Started with Rockets
Basking in the Dopamine Glow
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 14, 2009 6:57 AM
The opposition to sound science by creationists and ideologues has an significant impact on education, science funding, public perception of science, and a broad range of public policy decisions. PZ's rants help focus attention on the tactics and arguments these groups and individuals use to undermine science and to politicize their religious agenda.
That may not qualify as doing science, but it does qualify as science blogging.
Posted by: Kevin | May 14, 2009 7:01 AM
I think how you defined one of your terms:
"Original Science Content: Summaries of current knowledge, presentations of the blogger's research, definition and discussion of terms", is ridiculous.
There is an enormous difference between "presentations of the bloggers research" - which I would take the term 'Original Science Content' to mean - and the other parts of the description which should really be in with the "Other Science" option.
And likewise "announcing future research projects" could probably fit better in the first option.
Overall there are hardly any posts on the authors original research posted on Scienceblogs. I read Pharyngula all the time but don't think I've ever read a single post about a recent peer reviewed research paper PZ has published and apart from some stuff from Alex of The Daily Transcript and Darren at Tetrapod Zoology that goes for almost every other member of the scienceborg.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 14, 2009 7:14 AM
Sigmund, this is all open data. You're more than welcome to go back and categorize the posts to your own standards.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 14, 2009 8:09 AM
I think you are making a classic mistake in defining terms. "Original research" to working scientist means something very specific that is not always apparent to non scientists - in exactly the same way that the term 'theory' means something different to scientists and the general public.
"Original Research" is the data that gets a paper accepted for peer reviewed publications. Now I certainly realize that scienceblogs is not the place for direct publication of such research but it can be a place for working scientists to discuss and explain their recently published "original research". There's nothing wrong with most of the other categories and indeed the 'other science' aspect of the collective sites is the main reason I visit here but it comes across as incredibly disingenuous to suggest that such a high percentage of 'original research' is posted here when the truth of the matter is so different.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 14, 2009 8:47 AM
I am one of those brought in to ScienceBlogs via PZ's comments about religion. Compared to most folks here, I have no education, other than life and curiosity. I find myself coming to ScienceBlogs first in the mornings, before my other, usual sites I read at. I'd say, in the long run, PZ does more to uplift science than you would guess. If I find something that interests me, I will link to the article at various boards I am a member of, bringing in yet more readers, thus broadening science to more of the general public. Those topics are then discussed on different discussion boards, and a few more are educated about the importance of science in all of our lives.
Oh. And thanks, to all of you!
Posted by: Puck | May 14, 2009 9:03 AM
Sigmund, to make myself more clear: you're being an ass. Nowhere do I use the term "original research." Nor am I ignorant as to its meaning.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 14, 2009 9:04 AM
1. Get a feed reader.
2. Subscribe to any blogs that strike your fancy.
3. Scan the posts in your feed reader, and read the ones that look interesting.
4. Ignore the rest. It's okay.
There's a fundamental error in thinking that this or that individual blogger is responsible for providing "balance" or "coverage." It's the reader's responsibility to sort that out to his or her personal satisfaction. Blogs are not books. Blogs are not newspapers or journals.
Blogs are like a slushpile, and each reader is his own editor.
Posted by: HP | May 14, 2009 9:07 AM
By the way, Sigmund, now that I've had coffee and a chance to confirm, if you bother to read the February 2008 posts that this is based on, you will indeed find at least one blogger blogging on his own research. Finding it I leave as an exercise in separating the interested from the concern trolls.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 14, 2009 10:38 AM
HP: I was totally with you until I became a shushpile..
But seriously, yes, and this question then emerges: Why are so many people so intent on the work of telling everyone else what do to, what to think, what to say, and when to remain quite?
It isn't like there is so little space on the internet that we need to be stealing each other's voices. And yes, with technology (which can be Real Simple!) the fog can be cut through.
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 14, 2009 10:41 AM
Stephanie, don't worry about it. Your response to a genuine point of order in your analysis has made it abundantly clear exactly what type of person you are.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 14, 2009 10:54 AM
Yes, Sigmund, I'm the kind of person who doesn't declare the word "original" off limits because I saw it used in a particular way once upon a time. I'm also the kind of person who doesn't walk into a conversation waving "ridiculous" around and expecting any kind of response than the one you got--the second time. The kind of person I am not is one who puts "sneer" in the title of my blog.
You, on the other hand, are a concern troll, plain and simple. To top it off, I'm not quite sure you even understand the irony that this post was written to address concern trolls.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 14, 2009 11:28 AM
What I don't get about these concern trolls is, if there's not enough "pure science" posts, or they're annoyed by all the rest of the topics, why they don't just bookmark the pages corresponding to the scientific tags they're interested in? You know, so they get an overview of only the most recent science-related stuff that was posted?
And it doesn't have to be a published paper to count as "original science content". If it was "original research only", then yes, it would have to be peer reviewed, but I happen to agree with Stephanie's classifications and can see why she partitioned them the way she did. I'd say *most* of the original science content would be "summaries of current knowledge" on this and other science blogs, specifically because the bloggers in question generally point to others' research and distill their research into either laymens' terms or near enough that at least *I* can get it, layman that I am.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault | May 14, 2009 11:55 AM
What's my blog title got to do with anything? I'm afraid you don't know enough about me for that to be anything but a sad stretch for an ad hominem.
I don't concern troll. I know perfectly well what it means but I must admit I am enjoying the fact that you have gone full Allanic on the question of irony.
The real irony here is that in a post about how much science is present on scienceblogs, a non scientist makes a guest post demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of 'original research' and then throws a hissy fit when a real scientist points it out to her!
I think you've made a perfect demonstration that, quite frankly, there isn't enough science on scienceblogs.
That WAS your intention, wasn't it? ;)
Posted by: Sigmund | May 14, 2009 12:08 PM
Sigmund, I do admit that the lack of content at your blog makes it difficult to judge by anything but the name. However, ad hominem only applies when the criticism is off-topic. If you want to debate the appropriate use of words, expect your words to be fair game.
And really, if you think this is full anything, you're doing a very good job of reinforcing the stereotypes of scientists as sheltered and unworldly. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose, since you've already racked up arrogant and unable to communicate in anything but jargon.
Of course, that supposes you're actually a scientist....
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 14, 2009 12:35 PM
Sigmund:
d'oh.
Posted by: Lou FCD | May 14, 2009 12:51 PM
Keep up the insults Stephanie, everyone knows that means you're winning the argument. I must say its a brave move to start insulting scientists in general but I'm sure you know best.
Don't for a second try to address the actual point.
This whole evidence, proof stuff. Lets just leave that to the sheltered and unworldly 'scientists'.
I have no problem with the low percentage of 'original science' on scienceblogs. If I want original research I read the original papers - like all scientists should do. The primary benefit of this group of blogs is the distillation of peer reviewed research by professionals with some expertise in the field. This is science, of course, just not original science. Theres nothing wrong with this type of review of scientific data, of course, but if one is serious about the data one must read the primary sources. Bloggers are fallible after all and frequently their posts, interpretations of someone else's results, contain the kind of inaccuracies that the peer review process weeds out from published papers. I'm afraid part of the peer review process, indeed part of being a scientist in the first place, is the insistence on a level of accuracy that comes across to some non-scientists as pedantic. And yes, occasionally some of us bring that nit picking pedantic nature into the discussion section of scienceblogs.
Sometimes its the original poster that gets the criticism and sometimes its a commenter who disagrees with the blogger without providing evidence for their points. Perhaps I've missed some unwritten rule that the only acceptable comments here are uncritical back-slapping of the blogger. Although I doubt it. If this still means nothing to you Stephanie, if you still think its best to ignore what I said, to call me names and dress me up in your minds image of a nasty 'scientist' I think I'll leave the last words to Tim.
"And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We’d as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you’ll change your mind."
Posted by: Sigmund | May 14, 2009 1:27 PM
Oh, Sigmund, it's almost cute that you can't tell the difference between referring to a stereotype and referring to actual people. As cute as not being able to tell the difference between a blog and a science magazine or between why something is written and what you want out of it. As cute as assuming that someone who doesn't work in science doesn't have a scientific background. As cute as thinking that I can't possibly be educated and still disagree with you. As cute as obscure, chummy name-dropping. As cute as thinking I'd bother arguing with someone whose point has nothing to do with the post. As cute as not taking responsibility for one's own insults.
In short, as cute as...as those things that have to hide under bridges because they can't stand the light of day...as...right, as trolls.
I have at no point said anything about the importance of original research and peer review. If you'd like to make a point about something I have said, you're welcome to do that.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 14, 2009 1:45 PM
Apropos of nothing but that I still like it, here's a PZ comment from the original post:
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 14, 2009 1:57 PM
One factor missing here is that a post is a discrete measure. A long article review is ranked equally to a link to a news article and 2 sentences. Perhaps a better metric is sum of the # of words for posts in each category.
Also, how do you categorize things like Greg's linux tips or open source posts? The linux tips aren't really science and the posts on open source could fit in some of the more policial or general categories or in the "other science"
Posted by: bsci | May 14, 2009 2:28 PM
bsci, I hear you, but measuring length is problematic because different bloggers will use different numbers of words to get to the same point.
The Linux posts went under "Other." It's been a year, but I don't think Greg had any posts that month about closed source software being a problem for scientific transparency. Those I would probably have put under "Life in Science."
Posted by: Stephanie Z | May 14, 2009 2:49 PM
I came to read scienceblogs through a link from RDawkins's website to a religion themed post from PZ. I now read several blogs here especially PZ's and Orac's. I regularly check the 24 hour channel. I don't think there is too much non science related stuff here. I enjoy it the way it is.
Greg, keep posting about Linux, I always read those posts.
Posted by: beebeeo | May 14, 2009 3:30 PM
Nice work, and conclusion, too.
Posted by: Kevin Schreck | May 16, 2009 11:20 PM