Chris Rowan is a geologist specialising in the dark arts of paleomagnetism, and getting people to pay him to travel to exotic destinations for fieldwork. Having drilled up New Zealand during his PhD, and South Africa in his first post-doc, he now works at the University of Edinburgh.
Anne Jefferson has a love of all things water-related and blends hydrology, geomorphology, geology, and climate change in her work. She has a Ph.D. from Oregon State University and is now an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.Yesterday marked one year since I moved to Scienceblogs, so I was in a navel-gazing mood even before a post over at Bayblab caused a few other people around here to get all retrospective (look on my evil incestuous linking, ye mortals, and despair!). Of course, I was thinking more about the impact that hanging around here has had on me and my blogging, rather than the (allegedly negative) impact that ScienceBlogs has on the wider science blogosphere, but I couldn't help but notice that this notion that we SciBlings form an exclusive, self-referential clique who have sold out to The Man has resonated, at least a little, with people whose opinions I respect. This makes me wonder: does Scienceblogs really look so ugly from the outside?
In one sense, this debate seems to at least partly overlap with some of the concerns surrounding the ResearchBlogging project: the risk of using different groupings and affiliations within the science blogosphere to define what is "good" science blogging, and what is not, rather than celebrating the diversity of approaches and ideas that they represent. In this case, the complaint is curiously double-edged. On the one hand, ScienceBloggers have allegedly been corrupted from the One True Path by Mammon, and spend too much time posting about such dirty and impure topics as politics, religion and our lives outside of science in a bid to drive up traffic. On the other, people are simultaneously chafing under the peception that "the ScienceBloggers" consider themselves to be the science bloggers, and thus we mainly ignore those outside the SEED servers in favour of cliquey cross-linking.
If you have strong ideas about what science blogging should be, and a prominent outpost like ScienceBlogs does not adhere to it, then I can see that that could be a little distressing, particularly in terms of the way that it might shape the outside world's view of what science blogging is (if they have any view beyond "what's that?"). Of course, it's hard to believe that there isn't someone around here who approaches your ideal*, since we're far from being a tribe of mini-PZs. My sympathy is also somewhat eroded by this notion that the only reason for a scientist to write about "populist" issues is to drive up traffic. Clearly, there's no other reason why a scientist would be interested in writing about these things, such as finding them interesting, and important, and wanting to push the ideas and perspective of science more prominently into the public conciousness. Given that the SEED byline is "Science is Culture", is it really such a surprise that they are going to look for science bloggers who sometimes engage with cultural issues?
Just for the record, here are my five most viewed posts from the past year:
A tale of two volcanoes
What on Google Earth?
Annoying Misconceptions in Geology
The Art of Palaeomagic
Journey to the bottom of the Cambrian
Hopefully that demonstrates that despite ample evidence that posting Britney Spears pictures is the true key to driving up your traffic numbers, I write about things which interest me rather than the things that I think will get me more page views. I'd probably get it wrong anyway: I never would have guessed the identity of my most popular post in the last 12 months (which has turned out to be a bit of a sleeper hit: it's recently been getting more page views - from an unknown source - than it did when I first posted it). That isn't to say that I don't take audience response into account, because the Geopuzzle series was directly inspired by the popularity - also surprising - of number 2. But it's not my only consideration. It can't be, because however much you think SEED is paying me, I suspect you're overestimating it by a factor of lots. I feel no real pressure to shape what I write based on annual sums that I could earn by working at McDonalds for a weekend. With looong lunch breaks.
As for the "clique" thing, I do have some perspective on this myself, as prior to last March, I spent a year observing the collective from without. I don't remember thinking of them as particularly insular, especially since I'd received links from a couple of them, but I must have perceived that there was some sort of collegial spirit in operation, because one of the main reasons that I accepted the invitation to join - once I'd sobered up** - was the chance to be part of that community. But that was never in the sense of "Huzzah! I've joined the real science bloggers now" - I was just excited by the opportunity to interact with all these smart and talented people who shared my enthusiasm for public outreach, and to learn from them. But I don't believe that it's led me to turn my back on those outside the SEED stable: indeed, I've always viewed being on ScienceBlogs as an opportunity to share any extra attention that I might get out of it with the rest of the geology bloggers out there. I'd like to think I've at least had a small part to play in the growth of the geoblogsophere - from a certain point of view, another cliquey in-group which spends its entire time cross-linking to, and commenting on, each others' posts.
I don't consider myself to be particularly special in this regard - I've come across a lot of good writing via public and private links provided by my SciBlings. I can hardly claim completely objectivity on these issues, but having mulled this over I really do think that this is more about people feeling excluded rather than actually being excluded. That doesn't mean that these concerns should be dismissed, rather that people should realise that most of us are happy to promote good science writing wherever it should pop up on the web. You may feel that I've lucked out by getting a gig in a relatively high-profile part of the blogosphere, but truly, I'm always willing to share that luck around.
*Unless your ideal is, in fact, you. But that would be tremendously cynical of me, wouldn't it?
**I first read the invitation e-mail at 2:00 am on a Saturday morning, after a night out in a pub with a very good selection of real ales. Which is probably why it seemed like a good idea to check my e-mail at 2:00 am on a Saturday morning.
Comments
You've removed the lint from your navel; carry on! And continue to blog about whatever interests you. If people don't like it, well, they can go read Pharyngula!
I imagine most readers, like me, appreciate the easy availability of so many blogs by scientists; it's silly to expect any of them to be all science, all the time. I haven't bookmarked any individual SciBlog site, but the SciBlog last 24 site is the first one I read in the morning.
Posted by: Karen | March 2, 2008 5:59 AM
As a happy member of the geoblogosphere clique (which to be fare, anyone can join as long as they post about geology or related topics), I say full power to you. If being on scienceblogs means more people get to appreciate geology and its associated sciences, then fantastic. Don't worry about the perception of "selling out", or posting non-science related posts. You're doing a great service to all geologists and if you want to write about personal stuff, well, people aren't being forced to read it.
I think scienceblogs does a good job too, since they seem to get the better science bloggers out there into a centralised system. That's not to say science bloggers not on scienceblogs aren't good, but you always know that there's a certain minimum standard for the authors here.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Chris | March 2, 2008 6:14 AM
You do realise that the only reason Bayblab posted their criticism was that they wanted to get more hits, and the best way to do that in the science area is to get them from ScienceBlogs.
I would explain in more detail, but I'm putting the finishing touches to my post explaining how all the SciBlings are really in the pay of James Watson and Rupert Murdoch.
Posted by: Bob O'H | March 2, 2008 10:37 AM
The whole topic is rather silly. I've been following the threads, and I can't really see what the problem is:
1) Incestuous--or collaborative?
2) Not just science---so? Scientists don't have opinions? They shouldn't share them? You folks are hardly monolithic (except in your irrational dislike of superstition).
Posted by: PalMD | March 2, 2008 10:39 AM
Congratulations Chris - I second the other Chris's sentiments about getting more people to appreciate geology, and I'm always grateful to you for your links.
I see the Research Blogging scheme as choosing to be accredited for something. Rubber-stamping one's post with the symbol shows that a particular methodology has been followed, whether that methodology is perceived by the readers to be a good or bad thing. I can't get involved with it - I tried but the way my blog archive is set up is wholly incompatible with the BPR3 feed.
But that's different to being part of ScienceBlogs. While I would not presume to generalise on behalf of my non-SB fellow bloggers, here's what I feel. Call it sour grapes, call it lack of self-esteem, call it paranoia, whatever. I see a sentiment within the blogosphere, that the only good science blogs are on ScienceBlogs.
One thing I noticed in the Bayblab post was their link to a post on Slipr, where the guy actually says "So having hoovered up all the good U.S. science bloggers (believe me, I know... every time I look around for good blogs that aren't on SB, I realize just how many of them they've already got)". I don't know who he is, but he says he started ScienceBlogs. While I'm not American, that's still quite a kick in the teeth.
Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. I see loads of really excellent blogs in your blogroll, and most of them are not SB blogs. I notice a lot of the non-SB blogs have their own domains and are all set up as their own autonomous entities - it's one of many reasons why, even if I was invited tomorrow, I would not join SB. Those with their own domains, I'd be interested to know if they would do (or have done) likewise.
Last summer, I saw one excellent ecology blog apply to be on SB and be turned down, and another of what I would consider to be identical standard be invited and accepted. The process is not overly well explained, nor are the criteria. Maybe more openness would help - whether there are objective criteria (site hits, x posts about science within a set period, even whether only a certain number of applications or invitations are considered within a set period of time) or whether there is a subjective vote of quality, I do not know. And while BPR3 can be used as a simple accreditation scheme with the rules clearly displayed, ScienceBlogs simply cannot. For one thing, it's not something we can opt into, and for another, as you've mentioned, you signed a different contract to that we see as part of the T&C on here, so the rules aren't free to view.
ScienceBlogs may be a platform like Blogger or Wordpress (except I've never heard of anyone being rejected from Blogger). It may be an accreditation scheme like Research Blogging. It may be a community, like those good old-fashioned webrings we used to see, that linked to each other. This doesn't stop bitter, twisted, rubbish science bloggers like myself from having our noses perpetually put out of joint.
For what it's worth, on here I consider you and Darren to be ideals of excellent science blogging. Off SB, Catalogue of Organisms and All Of My Faults Are Stress Related.
Posted by: Julia | March 2, 2008 10:58 AM
I am no scientist, just a fan. From my point of view, there's nothing wrong with y'all posting about whatever tickles your fancy. The cultural or fluff articles might get someone to jump in and read a particlar blog for your take on the subject, but it's the science articles with your expertise that people link to and send to friends (which may explain your list of popular articles). I also believe lighthearted posts may help to "humanize" academic authors for readers who don't know any scientists.
Posted by: Miss Cellania | March 2, 2008 12:04 PM
I think Bob O'H is probably right about Bayblab's motivation. One of the time-honored ways to get attention in internet communities is to attack people who are more popular. (It can be very successful, if there are a lot of people who are feeling jealous and left out. And if it's fairly subtle. The Bayblab criticism isn't very subtle. Though I guess we're talking about them, so they've succeeded.)
I think the ScienceBlogs mix of science and culture, combined with diverse voices and good writing, works well. I know I am more likely to read non-geoscience blogs here than elsewhere, because 1) the site makes it easy to browse, 2) the writing is generally good and engaging, and 3) the science is generally reliable (for instance, I trust ScienceBloggers not to start ranting about the government's scheme to control the weather using jet exhaust). Oh, and the mix with culture might get me to read a post about neuroscience or quantum physics or something else that's way outside my expertise.
As for what you're doing - I think you're doing a great job of connecting the ScienceBlogs audience to the rest of the geoblogosphere. (You help connect the geoblogosphere together, too - I often find new blogs through your shared items, for instance. And I'm slow to remember that I've got a blogroll to add things to, so I'll often read a number of posts from your feed before I remember to link to a blogger myself.)
As for Julia's question about whether people would give up their own domain for the ScienceBlogs community: well, the Sb community seems to consist of intelligent people who write well, and it seems like it would be a good community to be a part of. I think the biggest drawback would be the pressure to post several times a week - I enjoy blogging, but I've got a job and a family, and sometimes (like this past week) they take precedence.
To flip Julia's question around: if I were in charge of Sb, I wouldn't invite me. I think my expertise overlaps too much with yours and Maria's. (If you want to broaden the geoscience representation, you would be better off inviting a geomorphologist, or a sedimentologist, or a hydrologist, or a geochemist, or another specialty. Tectonics is well-represented already, and both of you do a great job blogging about it.) I suspect that diversity (of subjects and of voices) is important in Sb's choices of who to include, for good reason - diversity makes the site more interesting.
I'm really glad you folks assimilated Maria, btw. She deserves to be more widely read.
Posted by: Kim | March 2, 2008 1:35 PM
I'm fully aware that I and everyone else who has responded to this have allowed their beards to be yanked by Bayblab. However, I was far less interested in the post itself than in other people's reactions to it, which I felt shouldn't be ignored.
As for the criteria by which blogs are selected - we don't know what they are, either. I know that people offer their blogs up at the rate of several per day, and we sometimes make suggestions in the back channel (which are considered, but we're not told why when they are/aren't invited). I certainly have no idea why they invited me on board (from a purely pragmatic perspective, I suspect that it was just that I was there - and Maria was going through a particularly inactive phase - at a time when geology blogs were thin on the ground).
Anyway - I certainly don't believe that all the 'best' science blogs are here - I tend to think of ScienceBlogs as representing a subset of a much larger group of really excellent sites, and if the nature of the beast means that we get more prominence than some others, then it is my responsibility - and pleasure - to share the audience around as much as I can.
Posted by: Chris Rowan | March 3, 2008 2:22 AM
I say just keep up the good work, and thanks for blogging about great, "hot" topics. I keep learning things here, and your quizzes are fun.
Posted by: Silver Fox | March 4, 2008 8:21 AM