…and this is a 
Now Bora has left ScienceBlogs. And all is still quiet from Seed Media Group.
A lot of the bloggers here are talking behind the scenes, and I can tell you what it feels like. Bora compares it to Bion's Effect, where the departure of a few people at a party triggers a sudden end to the event. He's wrong (Bora wrong? It happens sometimes). This is a situation rather more fraught. The ship is sinking. The Captain stands at the wheel, saying nothing, doing nothing. All of us on board are edging towards the lifeboats, completely baffled by the paralysis up top, and wondering when some action will happen, when the crew will show some life, when steps will be taken to address long-standing complaints amplified by the current crisis.
And the eerie silence continues.
At some point, there will be a loud noise, a sudden lurch (Bora's departure may even be it), and everyone will abruptly turn and run screaming for the lifeboats. I personally may trample a few women and children to get a good seat. There may be riots and recriminations. Shots will fired, flares will go off, people will be thrown overboard, boilers will explode.
This doesn't feel like a dinner party. It's beginning to feel like the goddamned Titanic.
Seed desperately needs to WAKE UP. And hope it's not too late.
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 4:02 PM
Bora too?
Now that really sucks.
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 19, 2010 4:03 PM
What is it you want Seed to do, PZ?
Posted by: Skeptico
|
July 19, 2010 4:03 PM
What does Seed need to do? Sorry, I'm obviously not 100% sure of the problem here/
Posted by: SC OM
|
July 19, 2010 4:04 PM
It may well. I didn't expect him of all people to leave.
Hope he fares well. His post is very much worth reading.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 19, 2010 4:05 PM
That would be a good time to snag a baby for roasting.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem with Seed is, except that they sure ought not to be using proxies that sell advertising to woo-mongers like Perry Marshall.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 4:07 PM
SC:
I didn't either. :(
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 19, 2010 4:12 PM
For a long time, Seed management has been relatively inert. There's little communication with Scienceblogs, and even less investment in site maintenance. We're limping along here with a swarm of little problems that have been accumulating, that we've been nagging them to fix, and only recently, after the Pepsico fiasco, did they hire a half-time software person to work on improving the site.
The last big infrastructure project they carried out was a plan to widen the right column to accommodate bigger ads. That tells you right there where the focus is, and how much effort is going into it.
That Pepsico mess would never have happened if anyone at SMG had sent out an email to the bloggers here. That's how little connection Sb and SMG currently have.
We're beginning to feel like an afterthought to the ads that surround our blogs. This is not good.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist
|
July 19, 2010 4:14 PM
I hear you, Brother PZ. Bora's departure was shocking, but SMG's lack of response was heartbreaking.
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 19, 2010 4:17 PM
This may be asking something you aren't allowed to answer, but is there anything contractually stopping all the Sb bloggers getting together on another, blogger-owned/-run platform? And what does one get out of blogging on Sb that one wouldn't get from going alone on something like Wordpress?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 19, 2010 4:20 PM
Nothing stops us. And there is rumbling about doing just that.
No, not quite nothing. We get paid here, so there is some reluctance to depart that current fiscal bonus for something far more uncertain and requiring more behind-the-scenes management (Seed took care of hosting, ads, etc.).
Posted by: raven
|
July 19, 2010 4:26 PM
Oh. It's too bad.
Scienceblogs is one of my favorite websites. With everything in one place, I can hit 4 or 5 science blogs in a few minutes.
Seed media might have decided that scienceblogs cost more than it generates in revenue and be letting entropy do it's work.
Posted by: Orac
|
July 19, 2010 4:27 PM
Bora was pretty much the last person in the world I expected to see leaving. His departure is a serious blow, perhaps more so than all the previous departures combined. This is not because he had more traffic. Rather, it's because, out of all of us bloggers, Bora was the most consistently committed to the Sb blogger community and who over the last four years did the most to try to build it.
I can tell you right now that I'm once again seriously reconsidering my position here, as are quite a few Sb bloggers.
Posted by: druidbros
|
July 19, 2010 4:28 PM
I dare say that there are many among your readers with some level of IT acumen (myself included) who would be able to put together a new network. From Bora's post it appears that Seed is having trouble changing its business model to the internet era. Many businesses are having that problem. I suggest reading 'Here comes everybody' by Clay Shirky.
Posted by: phoenixwoman
|
July 19, 2010 4:29 PM
Raven @ 11: The irony of that, as Bora points out, is that SciBlogs is by far the most successful part of the Seed empire -- the magazine itself, which is the cherished child of the operation, is moribund. And apparently the proprietors are unwilling to see this.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 4:30 PM
The motorboat is gassed up, the skis are strapped on and the sharks are circling.
Posted by: Jaycubed
|
July 19, 2010 4:30 PM
For those interested in Wilfred Bion's work, let me refer you to the American organization:
http://akriceinstitute.org/
And the international organization:
http://www.tavinstitute.org/work/development/group_relations.php
That continue to carry on his work on group relations via Tavistock experiential conferences.
Posted by: momkat
|
July 19, 2010 4:31 PM
Posted by: momkat
|
July 19, 2010 4:33 PM
:( blockquote fail, sorry
Posted by: arvind
|
July 19, 2010 4:34 PM
I would personally love to see a return to your pharyngula.org site. It had the cute appeal of running on an old server sitting in a university room with a Darwin puppet for company. :-)
Although I know that the kind of traffic you generate means that it's more likely you would be lapped up by some other network rather than having to go back to solo flying, lose a good chunk of pocket money, and also deal with the technical hassles of keeping the site up and running.
Posted by: Orac
|
July 19, 2010 4:35 PM
Shit. PalMD is gone:
http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2010/07/ethics_always_a_challenge.php
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
July 19, 2010 4:38 PM
So why did the SEED Magazine fail? Was it that they didn't have the resources to get the brand out there, to get it out on the magazine stands around the country?
Posted by: SC OM
|
July 19, 2010 4:40 PM
Well, sure, he makes a reasoned, informed, and contextualized case from a position of integrity, but how are his abs?
Speaking of..., "Art" is best ignored. (He hasn't appeared on this thread yet, but I wanted to get it in prophylactically.)
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 19, 2010 4:41 PM
I would have to imagine that there are plenty of online sites that would want an established stable of science bloggers (Discover, for instance, if you're willing to put being a stable-mate of Mooney). Alternatively, if you want to stay "independent", I'd guess that such a large group, with such a huge amount of traffic, might be able to swing a deal with a blogging software site like WordPress, who could provide all the back-end support (and possibly even the ad sales).
Posted by: lumbercartel
|
July 19, 2010 4:43 PM
That's what RSS feeds are for.
Posted by: Jason G. Goldman
|
July 19, 2010 4:44 PM
The silence from on high is deafening.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 4:44 PM
Tulse:
Bora covered Discover blogs; they don't seem to have an interest in getting much bigger and aren't accepting or looking for any new bloggers at this time.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 4:45 PM
Just think, PZ on the same network as the Colgate Twins....
And arch "enemy" Phil.
*whistle
Posted by: omnipasje
|
July 19, 2010 4:48 PM
Wordpress is such easy software, you can easily install and maintain it yourself. Even setting up ad blocks takes a few minutes if you know where to get your widgets.
Of course i have no idea how much you get paid for blogging here, so i don't know how much revenue from ad blocks you need to compensate for that (if you would want to). But setting up a site yourself is not hard and i doubt you'll lose much of your audience over it, as we will simply change our bookmarks and happily follow your writings wherever they go ;)
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 19, 2010 4:49 PM
Keep in mind, though, I also bring controversy. I'd be bringing a swarm of readers and some baggage.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 4:52 PM
omnipasje, think traffic.
Like LOTS of traffic.
Posted by: jcwelch
|
July 19, 2010 4:55 PM
yes.
They made the ads bigger. because bandwidth is, contrary to astoundingly popular belief, free. In fact, it's pretty expensive with continuous costs that go up, not down, as you add volume and scale. Providing bandwidth may be the only business where the economy of scale conspires to screw you.
There's a reason why low-end providers kill your account if you regularly use what you think you're paying for. They can't afford it. If everyone with a dreamhost account started using all that bandwidth and space 24x7, dreamhost would go out of business, and quick.
Unfortunately, despite asinine cries for "you have to come up with a new business model", (said model is never clearly articulated beyond 'new, and doesn't inconvenience me in the least'), the bills have to be paid. The server maintenance bills, the electric bills, the cooling bills, rent, property taxes. Those all have to be paid somehow.
This is why 'traffic' isn't enough. Generating traffic is good, but if they never click on an ad, your traffic is worthless. Lower traffic with higher clicks is far better, revenue-wise.
For now, for better or worse, ads are how you do that. Paywalls rarely work, although they make sense. You want to read a blog, pay for it. If you implement it on a per-blog basis, you get the people generating all the traffic generating all the revenue. More than fair.
Won't happen, because when it comes to paying for content, the denizens of the internet are entitlement queens, by and large. there are exceptions, but they're small. Almost a rounding error.
So, the blogs on Sb get screwed, because they have to compete with larger ads, or more deals with the devil. Seed gets screwed, because no matter how they try to generate revenue, they're going to get savaged.
This is a *huge* problem, not just here, but everywhere on the internet. How do you get enough money to pay the bills?
Well, you can just turn over all power to Google/Apple/MS/other corporate entity, but I think we can all see the dangers in that.
The person who can solve the 'paying your internet bill' problem is going to make more money than Bill Gates ever dreamed of.
But for now, there's no good answer, just a bunch of crappy ones that you try to implement and hope you only get half your face ripped off for.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 19, 2010 4:55 PM
Yeah, when I was running this site on my lab server, I knew what traffic levels would utterly choke it: whenever I got up to around 25,000 page views/day, which only happened rarely. Now I'm averaging 140,000. I'd need professional technical help to handle configuration of the server.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 4:56 PM
PZ:
You tentacles do reach far and wide. Reading Bora's post, I was a bit dismayed at all the plans to set up science blog sites which were split by field. I like having all different kinds of science under one banner, but I guess you can't have everything.
Posted by: LeeLeeOne
|
July 19, 2010 4:56 PM
Seed! No way!OMGs! NO way!
Okay sarcasm aside....
I should have recognized the signs (I have been taken for a monetary fool before) . . . .
I signed up and literally paid for Seed in print; glossy pictures and all; and online editions.
One glossy publication later, and 2 on-line magazines later...
Seed failed... and SEED failed!
I gave my money to those who I believe can further my belief... that reality is real and not what is wished for.
Yep, they mailed me the "sniny"
sniny....
LOL! a sucker is born every time. I believed in Sb and have contributed towards Sb... but its all now sniny............
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 5:00 PM
I did get a nice glass seed coffee mug out of the whole deal though
Posted by: blf
|
July 19, 2010 5:01 PM
If you ever read a copy (I once got one for free,† courtesy of a trial offer‡), it was junk. No, I lie. It was JUNK. I never even finished it before tossing it in the recycling bin.
I wasn't aware it later failed, but am not at all surprised. I have no idea if it was ever any good (my trial copy would have been in its last year of existence, by which time I assume the rot had settled down and had grandrotten).
† Two, actually. The same issue, delivered on successive days. I couldn't decide if the print people were also incompetent, or if the incompetence of the IT staff caused my request for a trial copy to be duplicated.
‡ Living in France, I didn't actually expect to get a copy. So kudos for actually sending
onetwo, even if it was a waste of trees.Posted by: ralfnausk
|
July 19, 2010 5:06 PM
I am sorry, but i can't understand the problem. To maintain a site like SB with the hughe amount of traffic is expensive, even if you do not pay anything to the bloggers. Sites like Wordpress or Blogspot can only exist ift the traffic is limited. A blog like Pharyngula would not be welcome on those sites. On the other hand it is understandable that Seeds main concern is advertising on the blogs - that's how they pay for it. In Printpapers it is a good custom that the advertising and the content section are as separeted as possible. That even goes so far as accepting ad's of the publishers competitors. While i could somehow understand the Pepsico-Problem, i don't understand why it should be a problem that Seed's main interest is making money. That is their job. I maintain a website of my own which i would have to quit if i ran into only a small percantage of the traffic generated here at Pharyngula alone. BTW: Would You be willing to pay something like a monthly subsciption? That is the only alternative to a professionaly managed site with advertising like SB.
Posted by: xunatz
|
July 19, 2010 5:07 PM
My goodness, what a long, painfully long post from a blogger I'd never heard of.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 19, 2010 5:08 PM
It's a rock and a hard place, alright, PZ. You've had a great run here, and maybe they could make it work again, but they don't seem too inclined to do so. I'd hang out here until you can't stand it anymore, while trying to find a reasonable alternative.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
July 19, 2010 5:12 PM
I'd be more likely to click the ads if they'd stop putting up ads for shit I don't care about.
Bigger is not better ppl.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 5:14 PM
And what a short, yet chock full of stupid, comment from a commenter no one has heard of before.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 5:15 PM
ralfnausk:
SMG's ability to make money is not the issue.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 5:17 PM
xunatz:
What a pity your boredom didn't prevent you from boring us with your contentless, moronic comment.
Posted by: joeldg
|
July 19, 2010 5:18 PM
Longtime reader (years), not much for commenting, but yea as others have pointed out for themselves, I would offer that I work in scaling large sites (12M users, 3 Billion page views/month at previous job, current job 30+M users) and would have no problems donating time for the scibloggers as needed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 5:19 PM
Neither is their need to make money for that matter
Posted by: oihorse
|
July 19, 2010 5:21 PM
@PZ
If you are looking for a hosting service that can handle lots of page views check out www.squarespace.com - it's touted as being able to handle anything you throw at them.
It's money out of your pocket for hosting, but with your numbers at least all the ad revenue goes back into your pocket without a cut going to someone else first.
Posted by: SEF
|
July 19, 2010 5:22 PM
@ arvind #19:
It also had pirate mode. Arrr!
And, just before it was abandoned, a frog:
(but there have been problems with that over the past couple of months).
Posted by: ralfnausk
|
July 19, 2010 5:22 PM
After having read Bora's post - which took quite a while - i am still not getting the point: As far as i understand him there are a) to many bloggers here - so he goes back to Worpress... and b) to much atheism and not enough science - i did not get that either, because Pharyngula is the only SB-Blog i know that is dedicated at least in its major parts to atheism - without leaving the Evo-Devo-Part unconsidered. So i do guess, there are some other points he did not write about in his lengthy farewell.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 19, 2010 5:23 PM
SB has always been the red-headed stepchild of Seed. Seed Media wants to publish a magazine. They published a print version and nobody bought it. So they published an e-zine and nobody bought it. The only part of Seed Media which was self-supporting was Science Blogs, so of course Seed Media went out of their way to not support it.
The regulars all remember some time ago when Seed Media tried to "upgrade" SB. They were going to have enhancements like avatars and threading and sexy stuff like that. The overall reaction was "ignore the bells and whistles, fix things like log-on problems and slow load times." Seed took the first part to heart, they ignored the bells and whistles. They did actually do a half-assed fix to log-ons but ignored most of the other problems.
Seed Media should work on the one profit-making part of their enterprise, SB. Hire a full-time IT techie or even two. Fix the problems many of us have been complaining about for years. Forget about publishing a magazine, it's obviously a non-starter.
If Seed becomes a tech company it'll prosper. If Seed continues to play silly games with the bloggers and their readers, they'll have problems.
Posted by: SC OM
|
July 19, 2010 5:27 PM
Fifteen so far:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/07/07/oh-pepsi-what-hath-thou-wrought/
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 5:28 PM
ralfnausk:
You didn't get it because that wasn't his fucking point!
Posted by: Brian Switek
|
July 19, 2010 5:30 PM
PZ wrote: "We get paid here, so there is some reluctance to depart that current fiscal bonus for something far more uncertain and requiring more behind-the-scenes management (Seed took care of hosting, ads, etc.)."
Except when we don't get paid. SEED stopped paying us - without any notice as to why - for several months last year. Then, around December, checks started coming again, only to stop once more. I don't know about anyone else, but I only just got my check for April, and when I raised the non-payment issue with SEED I got the equivalent of "Meh" in response. The lack of payment was not my main reason for leaving, but since I wasn't getting paid on time (and was not given any indication that I should expect things to change) I figured I might do better elsewhere. Even though I am not making anything at my present blog, at least I am not being ignored in addition to not getting paid.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 5:31 PM
'Tis:
In a nutshell. It seems that Seed won't work on becoming a tech company at all though; or they won't do it until they completely collapse and have to rebuild. They should have jumped on things as soon as they started bleeding bloggers. They're losing more each day and doing absolutely nothing about it.
Posted by: Brian Switek
|
July 19, 2010 5:35 PM
Oh, and I nearly forgot - despite winning multiple awards in the ResearchBlogging.org contest (remember that SEED now runs that site), Ed Yong still has not been paid: http://twitter.com/edyong209/status/18159049602
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 19, 2010 5:36 PM
When it costs $100/year to host your own blog, you're a fucking idiot if you tolerate bullshit marketing, advertisements, or anything else in your content.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
July 19, 2010 5:37 PM
Do I look surprised? Do I?
Every single site I'm on is doing something like this. Be it dA bringing out it's new add-saturated version to the complaint of fucking EVERYONE except who frankly don't care, and react to complaints with the cry of "You'll get over it, you always have," to FFN adding constant annoying adds of the typs that, when you load a new page, take you to another website entirely and require you click an arrow on top to get back...
Well, this website going down the same add-drenched rout of not giving a fuck is no surprise. A dissapointment, but not a surprise.
Posted by: raven
|
July 19, 2010 5:40 PM
Not a good idea. Something dreamed up by a scientist.
I read science blogs mostly for the content not in my field, physics, astronomy, paleontology, evolution, animal ecology, zoology etc..
In my field, I read the journals, or these days mostly the abstracts.
Blogs are written for a general if somewhat educated audience. There are orders of magnitude more of them than specialists.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 19, 2010 5:45 PM
I know people like the ad revenues, there is inertia involved, etc.
However, I'm going to toss this idea out yet again:
why not get together the science bloggers no longer interested in Seed, and set up a non-profit foundation to form a science blog hub.
I know for a fact that there would be interest in funding a project like that on the part of several major non-profit funders (McArthur and HewlettPackard come to mind immediately).
I also know that there would likely be many people who have IT background willing to help out with the technical end.
If there is serious interest in that, I have done this type of thing (creating internet site hubs) before, both commercially and for non-profits, and would be happy to assist with advice and writing up grant proposals, etc.
I really do think it would be a much better model, and regular stipends for participants could also be written into the grant proposal.
If I can help at all, please contact me at the email I post here regularly:
fisheyephotosAThotmailDOTcom
good luck.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 19, 2010 5:48 PM
Brian Switek:
Luckily for me, I seldom had enough traffic here to warrant getting paid, so I never noticed if checks were late. . . . And, going indie again didn't cost me anything!
</silver lining>
Posted by: Orac
|
July 19, 2010 5:52 PM
I noticed.
Fortunately, I never actually needed the money to live on. Very fortunately.
Posted by: raven
|
July 19, 2010 5:53 PM
Print media is going the way of the dinosaurs.
This does blow a lot of revenue models out of the water and we do live in a society where profits are necessary for survival.
No one seems to have too many ideas about how to fix that. one idea was to have microcash user accounts where sites collect a few pennies for traffic. Not enough for anyone to care but with a million page views a day, it can add up.
Posted by: skeptifem
|
July 19, 2010 5:53 PM
Tigerbeatdown relies on donation and does just fine. I would donate to the new blog to help pay bills if ya moved. That kind of thing would keep the corporate shit out of the way permanently.
Posted by: raven
|
July 19, 2010 5:57 PM
To state the obvious, this is a sign of cash flow problems.
Posted by: mothra
|
July 19, 2010 6:00 PM
@ralfaunsk #48.
Bloggers at this site are defacto science journalists. There is an implied and expected reputation of integrity. Adding a corporate voice, shilling as a science blogger, masquerading as science writers either is dishonest or gives the appearance of dishonesty via conflict of interest.
Information given out under a corporate logo would then be valued equivalently with real scientific information. This sullies the reputation of other science bloggers. Simple example- would you want your medical information from a doctor who was a devout Jehovah's witness? Do you suspect that his/her advice might be biased by beliefs? As a blogger, would you wish to be associated with a consortium which, over time, might contain increasing numbers of shills? Would you wish to be part of a network where wheat cannot be separated from chaff (neutral view) or where corporate interests are cryptically camouflaged and paraded as science?
Perhaps you are old enough (or live outside the U.S.)and remember the days when news organizations were not corporate owned and one got informational news not structured programing containing the 'fair and balanced,' the milquetoast and the banal.
/tirade
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 19, 2010 6:15 PM
I am happy to see ads to support ScienceBlogs and Seed in general, but it seems as though the blogs are being milked for every penny possible with all of the proceeds going to shore up Seed's failing enterprises while the blogs languish. That's not a recipe for anything good. Ads to pay for tech support to have better logins? I'm there. Ads to pay for Seed Overlord administration? Sure, I get it. Ads to throw money in a hole that Seed won't get rid of but also won't publicize on its own blogs (as Bora suggested they do) and also refuse to put any money back into the blogs to make them workable? I ain't down with that.
Posted by: druidbros
|
July 19, 2010 6:16 PM
This is not the only way revenue is generated or paid for. Its only one way. So your statement that lower traffic with higher clicks is better only applies to one way revenue is given to a website. I think PZ can do much better with other options.
Again, I saw several people in the comments who obviously have the expertise to help PZ and others make the transition. I vote for a virtual meeting where it can be discussed.
Posted by: sheik.djibouti.al.nayt
|
July 19, 2010 6:19 PM
Ichtyic @58:
Perhaps Pepsico could be enticed to kick in some dough.
Seriously, though, if Sb goes completely down the shitter, what are the chances of recreating a similar environment? I can't imagine that a large corporation would want to be associated with such a project unless they could exercise some editorial control over controversial topics.
Of course it would be cool if the bloggers themselves could set up their own platform, but I'd be very concerned that entropy would set in quickly.
Posted by: druidbros
|
July 19, 2010 6:19 PM
Agreed...Ichthyic.
Posted by: Rawnaeris
|
July 19, 2010 6:29 PM
I would be sad to see SciBlogs fall apart, but I can't say I'm horribly surprised.
I will gladly make the effort to continue reading this and other blogs if/when they move.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 19, 2010 6:29 PM
I still like the idea of an organization like the JREF taking up the slack.
Find somebody with lavish amounts of integrity, curiosity, and money — like Mr. Amazing — and get him / her to do it for the love of doing it.
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 19, 2010 6:30 PM
And click-throughs by a highly targeted audience, with a well-defined demographic, can be golden. The regular readers of Sb would, I think, be very valuable, far more so than the audience of a standard newspaper or general-interest magazine site. I don't know why Sb has such crappy, silly ads rather than, say, ads for ThinkGeek, Scientific American, Apple, Microsoft, etc.
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe
|
July 19, 2010 6:31 PM
Someone owns pzmyers.com but many variations are still available. I'd grab one if you didn't already.
Posted by: sillysaur
|
July 19, 2010 6:40 PM
PZ, do you think you're the biggest blog on the network right now? If so, I'm sure you're aware of your somewhat enviable position. Your departure, should you choose to make one, would cripple readership at ScienceBlogs.
I'm suggesting you have some bargaining power. "Be better managers...or ELSE."
Posted by: Isis the Scientist
|
July 19, 2010 6:45 PM
I noticed because SEED did not pay the organizations they promised money to in my name, and have not sent the paychecks I asked to be donated to that organization. When that organizaiton noticed and sent me an email, I noticed.
Posted by: Guy Incognito
|
July 19, 2010 6:50 PM
Wait a minute! Isis the Scientist, a CATHOLIC, drops by, and not a single cat was thrown!?!?
Posted by: raven
|
July 19, 2010 6:50 PM
Yeah, their ads aren't well targeted.
In the last few days, I've gotten one for becoming a minister from an online university, a fashion designer game website, and a self published science crackpot book.
The ads don't bother me though. Ads are everywhere.
Posted by: tamakazura
|
July 19, 2010 6:56 PM
You know what would help seed? Providing science relevant ads. Not individual targeting, because that's kind of invasive, but providing low cost ads to a bunch of science-related organizations could be profitable. For example, I will never click on an ad for car insurance. Especially not one that crashes my browser as Seed's ads are wont to do. I'm totally not interested in taking a holyland pilgrimage to israel. Or a russian bride. Or finding the people from highschool that I'm purposely avoiding. Most of the ads seed puts up are either poorly written, trashy, or *WHO* do you guys think your demographic is?! or all three combined. I can't say I've ever clicked on one, and more than that, I find their businesses trashy because of this advertising and wouldn't ever buy anything from even the more reputable ones.
However, if seed were to have an ad for TWiV, I'd click. I'd click on one for cheaper textbooks and lab supplies , and hacker zines. I'd click on science podcast ads. There are lots of ads I'd click on. The ones Seed has though, show a total lack of awareness of the audience and if they aren't getting the clicks they need, I really don't feel bad for them.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 19, 2010 6:56 PM
This is something else. The ads aren't targeted...because they can't. The advertising staff want to set up something like selling ad space that appears every time a blog post mentions "lasers" or something, but the absence of technical support meant there was nobody who could set that up for them.
It's the most annoying thing. They weren't just hurting the content providers with lackluster support, they've been shooting themselves in the foot by not providing the tools they need to generate revenue.
Posted by: Screechy_Monkey
|
July 19, 2010 6:57 PM
That strikes me as unlikely. Randi is finishing his memoirs and (I gather) transitioning to a much-deserved semi-retirement. The JREF seems to have its hands full these days just running the Amazing Meetings and the Million Dollar Challenge. And the JREF has never struck me as an organization with a high opinion of online communities: it treats its own Forum as something of a red-headed stepchild. I'm also not sure the JREF would be willing to associate itself with a blog that has as few restrictions as this place -- on the public sections of the JREF Forum, you can't even mention the full name of the Penn & Teller show "Bullshit."
That's not intended as a slam on the JREF; it's entitled to run its show however it wants. I just don't think that PZ or the Horde would be welcome there in its present form.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 19, 2010 6:58 PM
Sounds like a good idea. It should at least be looked into.
Posted by: randall morrison
|
July 19, 2010 7:03 PM
Of course, some people left because they wanted real careers, not blogging as a substitute for peer reviewed literature.
Look at Shelly Batts.
Stanford or blogging, blogging or Stanford.
What a choice.
How to choose?
Yeah, that was a tough one.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 19, 2010 7:10 PM
I can't imagine that a large corporation would want to be associated with such a project unless they could exercise some editorial control over controversial topics.
No, what I'm talking about are non-profit funding foundations, NOT corporations. The Hewlett Packard Foundation and McArthur foundations are entirely separate from the corporations that bear the same names.
no, once a grant is accepted, there are no strings attached; IIRC, this is part of the requirements of their non-profit status. There has to be a clear delineation between the focus of the nonprofit, and the focus of whatever business spawned the non-profit.
I've dealt with both funding organizations for many years, and both are excellent. There are several other nonprofit funders that would likely also be interested.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 19, 2010 7:16 PM
Of course, some people left because they wanted real careers, not blogging as a substitute for peer reviewed literature.
Hmm, looks at examples of other bloggers on Sciblogs...
Orac: MD seems like a good career, and he's had plenty of time to blog, too.
PZ: Full time professor at UMM. Again, seems like a fine career to me. Seems to have little problem not only finding time to blog, but doing his own research with zebrafish, travelling to both scientific and atheism oriented conferences, and even writing a book. Not to mention raising a family.
no, frankly I have to conclude you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
July 19, 2010 7:17 PM
Just realized that Seed is behind on paychecks.
When a company starts to miss paychecks, they’ve essentially flatlined. The body isn’t cold yet and there’s a chance for CPR to be successful. And, in rare circumstances, there’s not just a complete recovery but eventual great success.
But make no mistrake: missing paychecks is as dire a vital sign in a corporation as lacking a pulse is in a mammal.
Either they’ve got a desperate-but-workable plan for recovery that depends on every bit of cash on hand (in which case they’ve told their employees about it and have sold everybody on the merits of the plan) or it’s a walking corpse that just hasn’t quite yet realized that it’s taken a bullet to the chest. (Don’t forget: if they’re that desperate for cash, it means even the banks won’t lend them money — so why should you?)
There is almost never a compelling financial or moral reason to work for a troubled company for no pay. The chances of you getting your back pay are vanishingly small. Except in extraordinary circumstances, all you’re doing is enabling the management to extract the last cash reserves and collect their own paychecks while you waste time that you could instead have spent finding a new job for yourself (and burning through your own reserves in the process).
If Seed really is an entire quarter behind in paying the employees that actually do the heavy lifting, then they’re already dead meat. Any “Sciblings” reading this, if you haven’t gotten paid since April: it’s waaaaaaay past time to cut bait and find another hole. For your own sanity’s sake, write off the past few months as a loss and forget about the money because you’ll never see it anyway.
In the future, if one paycheck is late and the company has a reasonable excuse (“The payroll computer crashed and we’ve been working non-stop to get it fixed; so sorry we’re a day late and please accept this token bonus as an apology.”), don’t sweat it. If it happens with any kind of regularity, dust off the résumé and take the very first non-insulting offer you get (even if you have no plans on staying at the new job for longer than it takes to find something real).
If they’re ever so far behind that it runs into the next pay cycle, calmly explain to your boss that you simply won’t work for free, no matter what. Your boss can either pay you all back wages in cash on the spot or you’ll consider them in breech of their primary contractual obligations to you. If you get the cash, keep working, but your top priority either way is to get another job.
And don’t forget: at that point, you literally don’t have anything to lose, because whatever you would have lost is already gone. If the company really won’t pay you what it owes you for past work unless you promise to do even more work for no guarantee of future pay, then they have no intention of paying you for past work at all. They’ve already written you off and they’re just lying to you in the hopes that they can string you along long enough for them to land new jobs for themselves while they keep drawing their own paychecks.
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: sheik.djibouti.al.nayt
|
July 19, 2010 7:18 PM
Ah, I see. Thanks.Posted by: Screechy_Monkey
|
July 19, 2010 7:21 PM
I'm sure the Templeton Foundation would be delighted to host Pharyngula. After all, they're very interested in issues of science and faith, and don't require any particular sort of conclusions from their lackeys. No sir, not at all!
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 19, 2010 7:23 PM
That's just idiotic. They are, in the common parlance, leaving money on the table, and such capabilities are a very basic part of any moderately professional commercial online publishing endeavour.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 19, 2010 7:26 PM
Funny thing - stuff changes on the internet. MySpace was hot. Now it's not. Facebook is hot, but there are already signs of that wave cresting and people leaving.
I've been a part of online communities far stronger than Sb that you can't even find a trace of online anymore.
10 years from now hardly anyone will even remember Sb. But most of us will still be on the net, yammering with each other about the same stuff.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 19, 2010 7:30 PM
"So why did the SEED Magazine fail?"
I paid for a subscription to SEED when it first launched. I got TWO copies. Then nothing.
Until a little more than a year later when I got snail spam asking me to renew. Renew WHAT?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 7:34 PM
same thing for me
Posted by: "GrrlScientist"
|
July 19, 2010 7:36 PM
after i publicly say what i've been saying behind the scenes, you can bet your bottom dollar that i too will bring a bunch of baggage with me. because i've had it with being "little miss nicey-nice" in the hopes that i might someday have a real job once more. the evidence is in, after 6 years of unemployment, i'll never have a job again, so i can say whatever the hell i want, tell whatever truths i want cuz baby, i ain't got nuthin' to lose!
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
July 19, 2010 7:38 PM
Just out of curiosity, what are the implications for the last x years of people's posts on ScienceBlogs if they leave and if ScienceBlogs collapses? Does Seed own these posts or can the archived be transferred somewhere?
Posted by: druidbros
|
July 19, 2010 7:42 PM
mmmmm Grrl, I love the smell of napalm in the morning (or evening).
Posted by: necronomikron
|
July 19, 2010 7:43 PM
You probably have the hits to support a dedicated server. I'd rent an inexpensive one, and pop some blogging software on it. Set up your own adsense ads from google (and with you in control, you can block problematic ads).
If you're comfortable with installing the software, you can get one for ~$40-60/month.
Posted by: tamakazura
|
July 19, 2010 7:44 PM
Totally agreed, Ben Goren. Amen.
Posted by: druidbros
|
July 19, 2010 7:49 PM
Thats just plain simple laziness.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
July 19, 2010 8:14 PM
Or the Endeavour.
Posted by: tacroy
|
July 19, 2010 8:40 PM
Ben Goren @84:
While your comment would make sense if ScienceBlogs were a main source of income for its bloggers, it's really not. Honestly, I doubt even Pharyngula brings in more than a hundred or so a month for PZ. Why else would it have taken some bloggers so much time to realize that their checks haven't made it?
Also, I wouldn't necessarily leap to the conclusion that this is a sign of a dying company - it probably is, but not sending out checks for ~$100/month is a much less ominous flag than not cutting checks for ~$2000/month.
Although you've got good advice for dealing with late paychecks at your main job, in this case whether or not the Science Bloggers should leave is really more a matter of personal ethics and/or pride.
And of course, if it turns out that Seed isn't paying their actual staff, then they're probably going down pretty quickly so it'll be a moot point anyway.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 19, 2010 8:42 PM
...and the rats have already deserted.
Posted by: Martin
|
July 19, 2010 8:53 PM
I read Pharyngula before you moved to Scienceblogs, and I'll read it if/when you move somewhere else. I never did get around to regularly reading other blogs on SB, though. If you really provide ~40% of the traffic for ScienceBlogs, you have to wonder what the effect of the site falling apart will mean to the smaller blogs.
You'll be fine wherever you go.
As long as you don't go to HuffPo.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 19, 2010 8:58 PM
*headdesk*
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 19, 2010 9:02 PM
Legally, contractually, the bloggers own their content. Several of the folks who have already left have imported their SB content into their new (or old) WordPress installations.
Posted by: MyOwnGrandfather
|
July 19, 2010 9:07 PM
Why not just use Blogger? They have a few reasonable limits but most of those are related to page size and number of hosted images (which you can just host elsewhere). As far as I know they impose no bandwidth or traffic limits (They are run by Google after all).
A number of large blogs of comparable size to Pharyngula use them and other similar "free" services.
Google faq on Blogger limits: http://www.google.com/support/blogger/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=42348
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
July 19, 2010 9:09 PM
Yeah, but who's teaching that these days, anyway?
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 19, 2010 9:17 PM
From what I've seen, the comment moderation on Blogger isn't that great. Keeping out the wretched hive of scum and spammery would be difficult, if not impossible.
Posted by: James F
|
July 19, 2010 9:20 PM
It looks like ScienceBlogs...
*puts on shades*
...failed the Pepsi Challenge.
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 9:22 PM
MyOwnGrandfather:
Because Blogger sucks. Seriously. It demands use of 3rd party cookies just to comment, for one thing.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 19, 2010 9:35 PM
As long as you don't go to HuffPo.
LOL
It's hard for me to imagine something less likely.
:P
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 9:38 PM
Blogger Blows
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 9:40 PM
Love the Scientology ad up top....
Posted by: DaveDodo007
|
July 19, 2010 9:40 PM
I personally may trample a few women and children to get a good seat.
Now now, PZ that's not the way a true gentleman behaves. A true gentleman would dress up as a women and get invited to the seat. Don't you have any manners?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 19, 2010 9:41 PM
Caine, Fleur du mal OM #107
Rev. BigDumbChimp #109
Can't you guys make up your minds?
Posted by: MyOwnGrandfather
|
July 19, 2010 9:42 PM
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 19, 2010 9:42 PM
No.Posted by: MyOwnGrandfather
|
July 19, 2010 9:43 PM
And my blockquote fail underlines another huge issue. The comment quoting is terrible.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 9:45 PM
Only if you can't type or are prone to typos...And I'm both but I usually get it right
Posted by: MyOwnGrandfather
|
July 19, 2010 9:51 PM
Are you really defending scienceblogs blog platform? Cause this is horrible user experience.
(waits while my comment takes 60 seconds to post).
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 9:54 PM
MyOwnGrandfather:
Only if you can't handle the html. I don't have any problems with it, and using Firefox, I have a nifty text formatting toolbar. Also, the preview button is so you can check things before you hit 'submit'.
As for Blogger, sorry, your sell falls way short. It sucks. And it blows. It one of the worst blog platforms out there. If you don't know what 3rd party cookies are, well, do a little research. In Firefox, I have the option to accept or not accept 3rd party cookies. I don't accept them. I also have a number of exceptions in regard to cookies, which means they are blocked. I also use ghostery, a Firefox add-on, which finds trackers and blocks them.
Just in order to comment at Blogger, I have to enable 3rd party cookies and shut down my tracker blocker. That's because google wants to attach a zillion cookies to you and I don't happen to care for that, okay?
Sorry you're having such a hard time with SciBlogs, it's certainly far from perfect, but I have no problems commenting at all. My biggest bitch is the slowness.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
July 19, 2010 9:58 PM
I agree SB sucks when it comes down to commenting. I rarely wait for my comments to post, I just shut the window when I hit submit. Somehow, it usually works. The posts are near instant and yet the damn thing takes ages to reload.
But Blogger's another type of pain in the ass. So going to Blogger would be leaving one suck to go to another kind of suck.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 19, 2010 9:58 PM
Well you could read it that way if you want to find something to twist to support whatever point you are trying to make, but I was only saying that blockquoting here isn't really that hard.
Unless you need a platform from which to complain more about it. If so, please continue whatever rant you were ramping up.
I've mentioned many times how much I think SB sucks on the technical side but you blaming your inability to type blockquote correctly (or use a text formatting toolbar) isn't one of the reasons.
Posted by: MyOwnGrandfather
|
July 19, 2010 10:04 PM
I can handle the html. It's part of what I do for for a living. And a 3rd party cookie is exactly what I described above, a cookie scoped to another domain (or would you like to enlighten me).
Your argument of "it sucks" and "it blows" is very persuasive.
I have no problems commenting. But this usability is terrible. When PZ had to consider dropping anonymous posting a while back there were slews of people that bitched because it didn't work for them. That's a bad user experience, and touting your own workarounds means nothing as the majority of people who visit don't want to bother with that.
I'm not trying to sell blogger. There are a number of other options (wordpress, posterous, etc). Just pointing out the fact that the options proposed seemed to be either a) stay or b) run your own server. That's just ridiculous.
Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death
|
July 19, 2010 10:04 PM
I don't know what it is with commenting but the slowness for me is only when I comment at Pharyngula. Whenever I've commented at ERV, it's damn near instant.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 19, 2010 10:11 PM
It's capitalism, you're a cog in the machine, grist for the mill, feed for the hogs. Did you expect something different? Respect? That they'd care...
You should have been a CPA. Two-years of slavery then being fired for no reason but to replace you with fresh college meat would give you a great perspective on how capitalism work. Or, as Uncle Milty said:
You're just the help. You don't count. The bottom-line is God. No matter how stupid worshiping the bottom-line is...
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 10:14 PM
MosesZD:
Except, in this case, the SciBlings are the only thing keeping SMG afloat. You'd think they might drop the dead magazine and put their efforts into SciBlogs at this point. They'd rather dance around the corpse of their dead magazine though.
Posted by: ranggaw0636
|
July 19, 2010 10:17 PM
It's really sad to see even bora leaving this site ;_;
Posted by: Pareidolius
|
July 19, 2010 10:44 PM
Gotta agree with Icthyic (as usual). To paraphrase Andy Hardy: Hey Kids! Let's put on a show! Seriously, the geek/tech/design army at this new entity's disposal would be epic.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE
|
July 19, 2010 10:49 PM
No, what I'm talking about are non-profit funding foundations, NOT corporations.
Like TED?
Posted by: TWood
|
July 19, 2010 11:05 PM
Why nonprofit? I'd go the other way and talk to Rupert Murdoch's minions. And set it up with some sort of paywall or micropayment system from the start. Ad supported websites will always struggle.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
July 19, 2010 11:13 PM
Really? I've never noticed that. But than again I blog infrequently.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 11:14 PM
Pareidolius:
Add me to that list too. Such a thing would be *great* and as you said, the tech support would actually be there and it would be functional! Yays all around for that one.
If it came down to a pay site, I don't have a lot of money, but I could handle a fair annual payment for a sciblogs sort of set up and I'd be happy enough to pay it too. The amount of education I've received from various Scibloggers is priceless; so is the extended education from the various discussions which ensue. The one thing that bothers me about setting up a pay site is all those people who simply don't have money to spare and would then be unable to access various blogs. I hesitate when it comes to restricting education and making it available only for those who can afford it. There's already too much of that going on as it stands.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
July 19, 2010 11:18 PM
Whoever is selling the ad space for ScienceBlogs is seven shades of stupid, then.
I tolerated only a few days of those freakin woo ad things before I switched over to Firefox and the AdBlock add-on (even at work, the advantage of working in the IT dept!)
I now enjoy an ad-free, woo-free, Pharyngula experience. I feel it likely I am in a majority here.
Ironically, I am now in the market for a new PC, am interested in any developments in smartphones, am this far away from committing to buying a decent telescope, and am always interested in any kind of techno-geekery... and its a shame that my daily stop at my favourite blogging site can no longer offer help with this.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 11:25 PM
Gyeong:
Remember all the trouble with Jadehawk's first blog, when a bunch of people couldn't comment? She ended up moving to wordpress because so many people had problems.
On your blog, if I click on 'comments', a new page, minimized, pops up, which I find very annoying. If I stop your page loading, say because it's taking youtube a really long time to load, the pop up comments page won't pop up because I stopped the page, etc. I've found too many problems with blogger when it comes to just trying to comment that it's generally more frustrating than it's worth.
That's not to say Sciblogs doesn't have its problems it does. The sheer lack of tech work and support is a major, long standing problem. What with the whole Pepsico crap on top of long standing problems, and the complete lack of reaction on the part of SMG, well, things don't look good. And I hate seeing so many good people leaving. It really was so nice to have so many varied and good blogs all gathered in one place.
Posted by: MyOwnGrandfather
|
July 19, 2010 11:35 PM
I turn off adblock on most the sites I visit on a daily basis but scienceblogs isn't one of them. The business decisions here have been terrible. If they want to salvage it, they really need to hire some decent sales people or consultants. There's a lot of money to be made here.
Maybe among the commenters, but probably not visitors in general. reddit.com recently revealed their adblock rate at around 25-30% of visitors and that's probably very high given their readership is fairly technical and anti-advertising. I can't imagine SB is any higher than that so there's still alot of money to be made here with ad impressions. Somebody just needs to realize that woo/Pepsi isn't going to sell.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUVWEN3Ep1UrLqOCYAX5MCu-Q7-arkG3s
|
July 19, 2010 11:37 PM
Myths, falsehoods, fallacies. Listen to my words PZ.
Get a custom domain through Blogger who can handle your traffic without breaking a sweat.
If you'd like to deputize your minions to handle the comment spam, install disqus (with the added benefit of threading...).
Easy as pie. Drop me a line.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 19, 2010 11:41 PM
I don't get this disappointment in / brand-loyalty to teh Borg. What part of ".com" is unclear? They've always been all about disseminating science to make money, not the other way around. *shrug*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 19, 2010 11:47 PM
Most of the regulars don't want threading.Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkUVWEN3Ep1UrLqOCYAX5MCu-Q7-arkG3s
|
July 19, 2010 11:52 PM
Don't want threaded, then you select flat.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 19, 2010 11:52 PM
Googlemess:
Ugh, no thank you. You'll find the anti-threading sentiment rather strong here.
Posted by: MyOwnGrandfather
|
July 19, 2010 11:54 PM
I second that. I use it and it's not only nice to use but speeds up your page loads. I generally turn comments off on my blog (because I would rather discussion happen through reddit, HN, etc) but it's an impressive service.
Also, the threading is optional and I'd agree it would not be good for pharyngula.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 20, 2010 12:03 AM
Why nonprofit?
all sorts of good reasons:
-can be refunded to pay for expansions/stipends/new ideas just by writing another grant proposal
-has both the fact AND the appearance of non-biased science content (and whatever else) presentation (unlike that provided by say, a corporate funder).
-controlled entirely by the people involved, no hassles with "management".
-Can serve as a source for educating people in science communication itself, eventually even perhaps becoming a science communication funder in its own right.
-Can also solicit public donations to further enhance funding (typically adds another 15-25% depending)
-tax exempt on any monies raised within the non-profit.
give me an hour, and I can double that list.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 20, 2010 12:10 AM
example of a non-profit (this one is actually directly sponsored by the NZ govt) science media hub that started last year here in NZ:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/
I know the person who started it.
then they added their own blog hub:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
July 20, 2010 12:20 AM
They don't allow Blockquote tags, at least by default.
Posted by: Egaeus
|
July 20, 2010 12:28 AM
And in other news, PZ Myers is now a "one-note atheist crazy cat lady" according to one of the blogs linked by Bora.
Posted by: SC OM
|
July 20, 2010 12:31 AM
I read that, and that was as far as I read. I figured anyone who could say something so stupid about PZ wasn't going to offer any worthwhile analysis of anything else.
Posted by: Doktor Zoom
|
July 20, 2010 12:34 AM
One of my best friends is a crazy cat lady, and she's really quite nice.
Posted by: SC OM
|
July 20, 2010 12:43 AM
Does she have a blog?
Posted by: MyOwnGrandfather
|
July 20, 2010 12:48 AM
http://www.filthyrichmond.com/Posted by: jaranath
|
July 20, 2010 12:49 AM
Ichthyic:
In your experience, do you think a big nonprofit would be more or less vulnerable (vs. Seed) to pressure to suppress a blogger like PZ?
To those discussing paywalls: I'm not so sure that's a good idea. I would gladly pay a subscription if it was needed to keep Pharyngula going, but limiting access that way would fundamentally change the blog, I think. How much impact would it have if it wasn't broadcast?
Posted by: ranggaw0636
|
July 20, 2010 1:15 AM
thanks grampsPosted by: Escherichia coli
|
July 20, 2010 1:47 AM
Hmm... What about starting your own group of blogs? Out of all the readers here, I'm sure there are at least a few who would have the technical expertise to do it. Not for free, but as a full time job? The blog group could be run as a non-profit, and the readers here can be social investors if they so wish.
Posted by: Escherichia coli
|
July 20, 2010 2:11 AM
Argh, sorry sorry sorry didn't read through all the comments before I posted :(
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 20, 2010 2:13 AM
do you think a big nonprofit would be more or less vulnerable (vs. Seed) to pressure to suppress a blogger like PZ?
It's simply not even an issue!
Zero, vulnerability, IOW.
It's not even a question that makes sense, really.
the non-profit would be run by those participating in it, who would also likely form the board of directors.
funding from nonprofs is like funding from NSF.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris
|
July 20, 2010 2:50 AM
I come by to visit Pharyngula and this is what I see? Damn. I've been following this blog since it was over at the old site, and I'll follow it anywhere it goes except behind a paywall. There's no money in the Pygmy Loris budget for such a thing, and I no longer use credit cards. Hell, I don't even have a check card. I could probably do an annual subscription (particularly if it was due around the time I get my tax return) if I could pay by actual check.
Anyway, Ichthyic has a good suggestion with a non-profit set-up and I'd be willing to cut a check for such a thing, especially if it included lots of science (and maybe other academic topics) blogs.
Finally, blogger sucks. I have a blog over at blogger that I haven't touched in years, and I cannot get into it because of their switch to google. I tried linking my old account to a google account and the damn site still won't let me access my old blog at all. :(
Posted by: omnipasje
|
July 20, 2010 2:51 AM
In all seriousness, if there really is the idea going around of making a new (non profit) science blog hub i would love to help out.
Especially as most of the stuff for maintenance and such can be done on line (to the software and such) it wouldn't be a problem that people work on it from all over the world.
So how serious are those plans?
I don't mind devoting quite some time to this and don't really care about getting paid.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 20, 2010 3:03 AM
Blogger does seriously suck.
But then, as far as I can tell every blogging platform ever written sucks.
They all have their idiotic aspects where you have to spend hours or days trying to accomplish a task or solve a problem which never should have even been necessary.
Posted by: krc [clowersnet.net]
|
July 20, 2010 3:05 AM
Blogger has a horrible UI (which actually can be avoided on the main page and in posts, but not when you want to comment). Third-party cookies and JavaScript are involved. And I've had almost as many problems commenting there as many people have had here.
And someone mentioned that Wordpress was a site, but they didn't seem to realize that it is also a piece of software.
Also, as more and more blogs start to go their own way, it would be nice to at least have a "Planet Science Blogs". researchblogging.org kind of does that, but (aside from also being a SMG... I hope it can be saved), it is specific to posts that meet those criteria. It would be nice to have a more inclusive grouping, based on blogs, rather than on posts. Hosting a Planet like that would still take a fair bit of resources though, even if nothing like hosing all the original sites.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
|
July 20, 2010 3:38 AM
I used ti belong to a now-defunct book forum. It was active and had a great base who were very loyal to the brand. However, the software it ran on was quite expensive, so it had to become pay-to-play.
Long story short, the users started drifting off, and few new people signed up, leading to the site eventually closing.
What I am trying to say, is that going behind a paywall should only be considered as the last option. I don't know of any site which has successfully pulled that off (Salon's TableTalk still exists, but it is far from what it was 10-12 years ago).
Posted by: creating trons
|
July 20, 2010 3:44 AM
I can't help with teh teknuckle stuffs, and I don't want to see a subscription as some good people here may not afford it.
I would not have a problem with a monthly or annual donation. I receive sooo much knowledge here, I would be happy to help out.
Gramps, that crazy cat lady of your is very funny. Thanx.
Posted by: apweiler
|
July 20, 2010 3:45 AM
A few thoughts on this... firstly, as others have said, surely it's feasible for PZ to get a reasonably shiny hosting package that can handle the traffic, and still come out on top in terms of ad revenue. Hell, if scienceblogs.com is what's making the money to keep seed.com alive, and Pharyngula gets 40% of Sb's traffic, you could probably hire a part-time sysadmin just to run Pharyngula...
Secondly, I like the idea of setting up a non-profit scienceblogging platform. If Sb.com is profitable, it should be feasible for a similar-sized collection of bloggers to set up a non-profit company employing some full-time staff (sysadmin, ad sales, accountant) and pay out any surplus to the bloggers. Sort of like Sb.com now, but without siphoning off part of the money to subsidise the failing magazine side of it.
Plus, any officially non-profit setup could take donations in addition to ad revenue. Sure, there are shitloads of sites that solicit donations and I always think it can't work, but I know of some counterexamples. Escape Pod is a weekly podcast of short stories, that not only funds its server/admin costs by donations, but also pays the authors whose stories they run, while being free to download. Also, the German blogger/podcaster at tim.geekheim.de solicited donations from his listeners to buy himself an annual unlimited-travel train ticket for Germany, which is >€6000, and reached the target much faster than expected.
Oh and finally, I'd like to throw in a plug for Flattr. No, I'm not involved with them in any way but it's a good idea. For some reason, almost all of the people using it so far are German, come on folks, go and change that! It *can* make a substantial amount of money - it has only about 20-30k paying users so far, and some of the top earners on it have made several hundred Euros in their first full month there. For what it's worth, at least one of the bloggers at Scienceblogs.de has added a Flattr button.
Posted by: apweiler
|
July 20, 2010 3:50 AM
Oh, and I'll add: I personally think paywalls/subscription systems are a bad idea, you'll lose a huge chunk of the community immediately and then possibly those that paid up initially will leave because the community has disappeared...
Maybe some sort of premium features available only to subscribers? As far as I know b3ta.com largely funds itself out getting people to pay (or 'donate') for the privilege of having an icon (most sites would call it an avatar I guess) next to their username.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray
|
July 20, 2010 4:08 AM
I own the domains:
pzmyers.info
pzmyers.net
pzmyers.org
and am more than willing to donate/transfer them 'gratis' to PZ should he want/need them.
I figured it was preferable that one of his trained minions grabbed them before the wily and whip-crack smart Kirk Cameron so did.
(It is my way of partially atoning for we Aussies having inflicted the scourge of Ham, K., upon the globe.)
Mmm. I wonder if hotcephalopodsex.com is available?...
Posted by: SMCinPDX
|
July 20, 2010 4:17 AM
@ TWood, #128
Paywalls are not a viable platform.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
July 20, 2010 4:40 AM
Waah .. bye bye Bora. I missed out on all the fun though, but at the moment I have the impression that people should just get on with things and are expecting far too much idealism from an entity which needs to make money and pay people for services. I don't see why people don't just give 'em a good kick and get back to business. Since I'm currently in Viking territory I'll just mention that the Pepsi website seems self-defeating: pepsi.no -- I wonder if someone's registered just.say.no. Across the pond in Italy I wonder if there's a just.do.it
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 20, 2010 5:51 AM
I don't see why people don't just give 'em a good kick and get back to business.
This is a long, ongoing thing. People HAVE given them a good kick, several times, and not much has come from it.
far too much idealism
to that I just say you must not have investigated other models for doing this much, to think that wanting something better than what Seed is offering is "idealism".
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 20, 2010 6:08 AM
well, if there is support for the idea of setting up a nonprofit internet hub for science content, let me know.
again, it's what I did professionally for 6 years, I'm in contact with people doing the NZ govt version of sciblogs here in NZ, I also personally know the guy who wrote the blog software for Ravelry (I'm sure there are some LSG fans around here), and I've got a good idea which nonprofit funders might be interested in seeing a grant proposal too.
I could start going off on my own to collect resources and write a proposal, but from previous experience, I know not to waste my time unless content providers actually contact me directly. I've got too much of my own stuff to do to start a major new project unless there is interest from the bloggers themselves.
so, that said:
fisheyephotosAThotmailDOTcom
cheers
Posted by: The Grumpy Skeptic
|
July 20, 2010 6:41 AM
i would gladly pay to ready your blog PZ, be it a few cents per post you make, or a montly/yearly fee!
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 20, 2010 6:48 AM
They day when most management, of most companies, recognizes that fact, it'll be the day of the rapture... In other words, after two-decades plus as a CPA watching businessmen... It ain't gonna happen.
It is a rare thing for management to recognize it's the talent underneath them that makes the company run successfully and competitively over-time. Warren Buffet, if you've ever read his various letters to the shareholders, clearly does.
But the vast majority are more like HP's Carly Fiorina, clueless gorms who got lucky by being in the right place at the right time and were attributed with success that was really the product of luck, not skill and timing. When brought to the top echelon of the Company they're supposed to "rub their magic on" it goes to hell.
In the meantime, the lucky gambler who rose to the top, shows the lack of skill and insight necessary to run a company. Even as it fails around them, they refuse to believe they are destroying the Company by their actions and not moving it forward.
At one time HP was STODGY, but incredibly high-quality and reliable and had a phenomenal printer business. They needed to move forward, in some ways/areas, but not the way Fiorina went in destroying the "HP Way" and the product line. Now their third-rate in everything and I, a person who as owned nothing but HP printers for over twenty-years, no longer recommends or purchases the product.
They're, frankly, not the best anymore... And show a decided bent toward engineering them to be expensive to operate (got to have those toner and fuser sales) instead of cheap and durable...
Anyway, it was sad to see HP crash, burn and die. And maybe they'll, someday, rise like the Phoenix. But, for now, they're just another shit-computer brand like Dell and Gateway.
But back to the main point, management generally doesn't get it. They think they're the important ones. They're not. Their job is to MANAGE the important assets, but that's not what they do...
At least most of them.
But then, what do you expect from a feudally-structured organization? Rational behavior?
Posted by: omnipasje
|
July 20, 2010 7:30 AM
Ichthyic, you got mail :)
Posted by: charley
|
July 20, 2010 8:21 AM
Somebody please hire Ichthyic (165).
Also, having grown up in church I would respond to occasional groveling/guilt trips with small donations.
Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher
|
July 20, 2010 8:39 AM
If this is already in the thread, sorry. If not...
Posted by: necronomikron
|
July 20, 2010 8:40 AM
A blogging network could run off of micro-donations and advertisement content.
Could even pay the bloggers a minor amount.
Anyone willing to donate towards the cause could set up a recurring payment via paypal for anywhere between $1 and $5 per month. Wouldn't take very many to rent a fairly powerful server. With a little bit of a starting donation (grand total of a ~$200-500), you could rent a couple of decent servers, start a blogging network (you'd need some technical minded people - I don't mind donating my time as well, though, it'd need something of a director to get things going).
Micro-donations are the way to go for this, at least until the advertisement money starts kicking in. Either use adsense or negotiate for advertisement directly.
Posted by: necronomikron
|
July 20, 2010 8:48 AM
Also, I'll put my money where my mouth is, if a few of the bloggers will commit. I'll commit to $50 initially to help pay for the buydown on the first server(s), then $5/month indefinitely.
Posted by: necronomikron
|
July 20, 2010 8:53 AM
And... I have registered sciblogs.org, which I will transfer control of to anyone interested in starting the project.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
July 20, 2010 9:30 AM
The ship is sinking. The Captain stands at the wheel, saying nothing, doing nothing.
Yet with all the howls of complaint about mismanagement and aloofness, a search across the whole SB network reveals only one allusion to "Captain Bly".
Naturally, our esteemed host would never use that line, to avert certain of us scurvy knaves looking to him as "Mister Christian". But where is Pitcairn Island?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
July 20, 2010 9:44 AM
Caine, Fleur du mal OM @ # 118: ... using Firefox, I have a nifty text formatting toolbar.
Are you using an older version of Frfx, or have you found an updated and v. 3.6.6-compatible formatting add-on?
(And if you have, what is it pleeezzz?)
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
July 20, 2010 9:55 AM
PZ, sounds like you're the proverbial finger in the dike at this point. Or, you are in the catbird seat. Or, you are the bullet in the gun that SMG is apparently playing Russian roulette with. Or... well you get the idea - if you bolt, SB may very well implode.
It almost seems as if Seed doesn't care if SciBlogs fails... so why should you? Whatever logistical or financial obstacles there may be from relocating your blog, they can be overcome.
Posted by: jaranath
|
July 20, 2010 10:17 AM
Ichthyic:
Seriously, I'm not pushing an agenda or being obstinate...I'm just imagining something like the pressure the NEA had over some of the artists they funded. Admittedly that's a sort-of government agency, though. But if Pharyngula is funded by a nonprofit, and PZ honks off Catholics again big-time, wouldn't Bill Donohue be all over the nonprofit, campaigning against donations to it? Isn't public perception critical to a nonprofit's funding stream?
I think I'm missing your point...such as experience has shown you that just doesn't work against a nonprofit, or you're referring to a nonprofit that publicly shares PZ's views
And willingness to be controversial, or something...?
Posted by: irenedelse
|
July 20, 2010 10:20 AM
Uh, oh. Nobody will trample this lady: Zuska already jumped from the tilting deck of the Titanic.
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
July 20, 2010 10:35 AM
Pierce R. Butler @ #175
I haven't used the extension you're talking about, but have you tried using Nightly Tester Tools to override the incompatibility?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 20, 2010 10:35 AM
Some nonprofits are heavily endowed up-front, so they don't need a constant infusion of cash donations to fund their programs. They dole out the earnings from their endowment, without touching the principal. That is type of nonprofit Ichthyic is talking about. And they tend to be very immune to professional pests like Bully BillD.Posted by: necronomikron
|
July 20, 2010 10:53 AM
@NOR, OM:
Such a site would need about %75,000 to $150,000 just to meet $250/month operating expenditures.
(Assuming drawing out 2%-4%/year from an investment account making at least that much per year.)
Posted by: necronomikron
|
July 20, 2010 10:55 AM
err, $75,000 to $150,000, blah blah blah.
Posted by: necronomikron
|
July 20, 2010 10:59 AM
Simple math, by the way.
Estimated monthly operating expenditures (E) * 12 (Number of months in a year) * 25 (for 4%/year withdrawn) or * 50 (for 2%) = Initial investment (I) required
[25|50] = regex (so, matches 25 or 50)
E(12*[25|50]) = I
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 20, 2010 11:01 AM
That presumes absolutely no revenue from ads. I would imagine that a relative homogenous, relatively technical, highly educated audience would be worth a lot to particular advertisers.
(And it is the inability of Sb to capitalize on this that really blows my mind. The readership here should be a goldmine, and they can't do targeted ads? Seriously?!?!)
Posted by: necronomikron
|
July 20, 2010 11:08 AM
Tulse: You are correct. I was referring to money from investment only.
Some investment money + donations and advertisement would definitely work.
Posted by: jaranath
|
July 20, 2010 11:29 AM
Nerd of Redhead @ #180:
(cue Emily Litella)
Oh. Nevermind!
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
July 20, 2010 12:06 PM
Pierce R. Butler @ #175
That formatting toolbar doesn't work for me either, but I found a decent substitute: BBCodeXtra. It gives you a right-clickable menu for html-formatting and tags you may define by yourself. (I got one called Gumby, guess what it does? :))
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 20, 2010 3:06 PM
Pierce:
Updated version! Go here: http://codefisher.org/format_toolbar/
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 20, 2010 3:42 PM
I have registered sciblogs.org
that should be a good one to save.
Some nonprofits are heavily endowed up-front, so they don't need a constant infusion of cash donations to fund their programs. They dole out the earnings from their endowment, without touching the principal. That is type of nonprofit Ichthyic is talking about. And they tend to be very immune to professional pests like Bully BillD.
Yep, that's primarily what I'm envisioning.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 20, 2010 3:50 PM
Such a site would need about %75,000 to $150,000 just to meet $250/month operating expenditures.
sounds about right. I expect first grant proposal would probably be for a 2 year initial startup, somewhere around 200-250K (on the low side).
A bit of work, but doable considering the content and already proven public interest and track record.
Might even be able to get matching funds from NSF to assist.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 20, 2010 3:54 PM
on formatting.
I use both BBCodeExtra and this formatting toolbar with the latest firefox:
http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&source=hp&q=text+formatting+toolbar+firefox&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=57d9c86769d1bf04
both seem to be working fine.
Posted by: inquisitiveravn
|
July 21, 2010 1:43 AM
To add to the advertising discussion:
Scienceblogs is the reason I have Adblock Plus in the first place. I don't object to advertising on websites in principle, heck, I even unblock ads on selected sites, but an ad should not break someone's browser. SB ran a series of animated ads that were not compatible with Firefox. After my browser froze one too many times, I installed Adblock. This allowed me to read my favorite blogs on this site blissfully ignorant of the wooish ads unless someone complained about it either in comments or a top level post.
But that's another thing. The annoying browser breaking animated ads were at least paid for by companies where it made sense that they'd be advertising on a site like this. The woo ads make no sense whatsoever. Seriously, if you're going to put advertising on a site, it should aimed at the kind of people you expect to visit the site, e.g. a photography blog having ads for cameras and image processing software. If SMG can't figure that out, they're asking to lose money.
Not related to the advertising, is anyone else not seeing the < previous article > < main > < next article > just below the title banner? Another bit of SB fail.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
July 27, 2010 10:49 AM
Just for the record: soon after uploading my # 175, I hopped a plane to the left coast (for an aunt's 100th! birthday celebration - she's doing fine, thanks for asking), and didn't remember to check for replies until this morning.
Belated thanx to Treppenwitz, Weed Monkey, Caine, Fleur du Mal & Ichthyic for most helpful suggestions!