Welcome UNC English 12 Students

We're debating rather the comic relief throughout the blog enhances or hinders the validity of the content. The class seems to be divided. Personally, if I was looking for valid scientific data, the random pictures would cause me to move on to another cite. However, this mind frame could be the result of things taught by people I trust. For example, computer teachers trying to teach a class to weed out any biased cite for information. After looking at your cite, I will probably find myself challenging this viewpoint.

There is as much truth in humor (and sometimes more) as in 'normal' writing. It's just harder and requires more intelligence to gather.

Well for starters, you shouldn't be considering blogs as primary sources ("scientific data") in the first place. That said -- depending on the field of science, there are sites where you actually can see published research in official form, or official references from various scientific agencies.

This isn't one of those sites. This is a personal blog by someone who happens to be a scientist. Its contents reflect her variety of interests and experiences, not to mention her basic humanity.

If you think her humorous asides are so "unscientific" as to make you ignore anything else she might say... well, that says more about you than about her. Scientists try to see the world as it is, not as we could like it to be. Sometimes that means sublime beauty, or intricate complexities. But sometimes, the world hands us stuff that's just ridiculous. And if you can't laugh at these things, then the joke lands on you....

There is as much truth in humor (and sometimes more) as in 'normal' writing.

So, we're laughing at Bush because it's true?

It's just harder and requires more intelligence to gather.

Intelligence. Ah, perhaps not.

Bob

It is interesting to read their comments on that thread. They are evaluating blogs as if they were MSM, which suggests that they do not understand the way blogosphere works.

The most striking thing was that someone disliked Real Climate as being "biased"! Yikes! This is telling!

This means that they actually prefer exactly what we always rail against: the hidden bias of the "he-said-she-said" model of journalism that gives "balance" to two sides no matter if one side is BS and the other is correct 100%.

I'd rather see the open bias of the blogs, where the entirety of the blogosphere chimes in, evaluates information, and figures out what is true and what is bogus.

I laughed out loud at coturnix's innocent typo: 'teh outside' .

I found things on this site interesting (like the anti-obesity gum) and funny. However, like I said, if I was looking for valid scientific data (as in to write a report), the random pictures would cause me to move on to another cite. I believe blogs can be used for valid information! They could be useful before starting research, or even getting me on the right track.

If I was using a search engine and this site came up as the first hit, I would open it. As I was reading and looking at the pictures, I would probably go on to another site. I'm not saying this site should not have pictures and graphs. I think pictures and graphs add to this site, however, for factual data--the comics do not. Do I possess a stereotype about this site? Yes, but who doesn't?

GrrlScientist asked us to leave our opinions regarding what she is doing with her blog, and so I did. These are just the topics we were discussing in class. And, most of us are new to blogging.

When I was getting my master's degrees, one of the sillier assignments was to read a year of any library science journal and write an analysis. Reading a few blog posts can't give you much of a feel for a blog. I've subscribed to blogs for months on end before I conclude that I'm not getting anything out of that particular blog. In the case of my own blog (which isn't scientific and is purposeless), sometimes I wonder why anyone reads it--it has little useful information. The personality of the blogger is important, which is why I like blogs with a mix of topics. Buy hey, let's call a site a "site" and not a "cite."

If I was looking for someone who had a valid opinion in an English class, I'd find someone who knew the difference between site and cite.

Interestingly, they want us to look like mainstream media. They most seem to like Popsci site which is barely a blog - BECAUSE it has no personal touch. And most of the time we spend ripping the journalists (including the PopSci) and the shoddy way they report on scientific studies because, unlike the journalists, science bloggers are actually experts in what they write about. They do not need to peretend that they are serious (or unbiased), they can just say it as it is and have some fun in the process.

Good one Dennis, I didn't think grammar was so important with blogs. Since they aren't so factual and everything.

I also find it ironic that this blog has gotten more comments than the other more important blogs. I now realize I should have gone with the more banal comment: Your site's great! Keep up the good work!

...and now Jeremy knows about "circling the wagons", even if he doesn't know what a blog is!

Even though it took some low blows, I think I know what a blog is now.

Jeremy said:

I also find it ironic that this blog has gotten more comments than the other more important blogs.

Of the 4 blogs your instructor linked to, RealClimate gets by far the most comments. If it is not the most important (debatable), it is second only to Nisbet's Framing Science. Nisbet's low number of comments is influenced by how long they take to appear - it seems to me he approves comments only once a day, and not on weekends.

Opps, I meant this post, not blogs...sorry. "I also find it ironic that this [post on this blog] has gotten more comments than the other more important [posts]."

Yes, Jeremy: that often happens when someone starts trolling.

Well, OK perhaps you weren't quite trolling, and some of the reactions were a bit more caustic than they could have been (hey, GrrlScientist didn't say the rest of us don't bite!). But a bit of controversy always helps the blog comments to flow in.

Hey, perhaps one of us should volunteer to become the resident troll.

Bob
P.S. I hope your comment about grammar was a joke.

(Grrlscientist -- my advance apologies for hijacking the conversation on this post)
Jeremy and all,
I see I'm a little late to the party in commenting, but I'd like to address Jeremy's comment about this post receiving more comments than the more "important" posts.

I write a blog that is about natural history. It contains my photographs and my field notes, phenological observations, etc... of flora and fauna. I put a lot of effort into those posts and they tend to be factual. They do not necessarily receive many comments, but my site meter tells me they are read. I also write posts on conservation or environmental topics that interest me. For example, I did a couple of posts about my photography project, "Ribbon of Death" where I photograph roadkilled animals to illustrate the impact of roads (and poor road planning) on wildlife. That kind of post often receives some very thoughtful responses. Sometimes, I write about something that just strikes me as both amusing and being of interest - for example, a few days ago, I wrote about freeze-dried laundry (laundry that freezes before it dries on my outdoor clothesline in winter). It was a humorous post, and a number of people commented to say they enjoyed it, but it also received comments about the environmentally positive side of drying clothes on a line instead of wasting energy to do so, and even surprised comments from those who didn't think clothes would dry well in our northern winters.

From my own observation of comments on my blog, the difference between posts that receive a lot of response and those that receive little hasn't got so much to do with how "important" they are. It has more to do with how a reader can respond to what you've posted. Looking at the three examples I've just written about, my posts with natural history observations probably don't leave a lot that requires a comment beyond, "Hey, I liked that." Most posters don't usually bother to leave that kind of comment. The only time I might get comments is if I post on something like the eye arrangements of different families of spiders, accompanied by my photos of spiders - in which case I'll get comments ranging from "Very interesting" or "I learned a lot from that" to "OH, HOW GROSS!", or "You people are SICK!!!" Btw, I usually leave those negative comments up, as I find it interesting how some people react to things they don't like -- I find them rather revealing of how isolated humans are becoming from the natural world and how they can regard a spider as gross and people who study and like spiders as "sickos".

Anyhow, getting back to post comments. When I write about an issue (say, my roadkill photograph project), people usually have an opinion or some emotional response and wish to express it. That will result in comments. The more personal posts, such as the recent post about frozen laundry, invites more casual responses from people who may not know much about spiders or road planning to reduce roadkills, but who *do* know about laundry and feel comfortable about saying something. I've observed much the same on many other blogs that I would class as information blogs -- you read the information and probably don't comment but just absorb, and when the blogger tosses in the more personal stuff, that's when you might decide to comment and share your own experiences or thoughts. One other thing you should keep in mind is that the number of readers of a blog has little to do with how many comments it receives. From my own site meters, I know that the number of people who lurk and read far surpasses by many times the number who ever leave a comment. Most blogs get a few "regulars" who will leave comments, but there is a whole population of readers who are too shy, or feel too intimidated, or perhaps feel like commenting is too much like work, to ever leave a comment -- which is really too bad as most bloggers enjoy getting feedback (Hear that lurkers??). Anyhow, that's my two cents worth on this topic.

yes, i did change the comment that goes with the image of the day in response to the student comments. honestly, i had thought that my goal for posting the image of the day was obvious, and now it is.

i also agree with coturnix that blogs are not part of the MSM, although i do write some articles that are journalistic in nature. the fact is that i do that on purpose to help my readers distinguish between my factual articles and those more personal responses that i have to journalistic pieces from the MSM.

further, when i first started writing my blog at scienceblogs, i did not write any personal pieces and people would write to me, asking to know more about me, so i decided that my readers, to a certain extent, want to know more about me. thus, the different "voices" that you find with different articles on this blog.

Hey there, Grrlscientist! Thanks for noticing our class' mass interest in your blog and encouraging our comments!

Our teacher had as looking at a few different blogs related to science and asked us what we thought. Everyone in class agreed that though blogs can be a great jumping-off point, they shouldn't be taken at face value as factual information. Even so, they have some great features like learning about new things and sharing funny stuff, too! So-- just so that everyone knows, we may be in a college English 102 class, but we are not all completly misinformed, nor do we misunderstand the resources made available by blogs.

I hope that maybe, if you get the chance, you will check out the blog we have created for class. We LOVE reading comments!
www.sharkbiscuits.com/blogspots

Go gentle on us... we are still learning!