A little while ago, John Lynch asked what really draws readers to ScienceBlogs, and listed his top twenty posts. In a similar vein, here are the top twelve Uncertain Principles posts of the past year, ranked by number of pageviews:
- SAT Challenge: Bloggers Dumber Than High-School Kids
- Local Realism, Loopholes, and The God Delusion
- SAT Challenge: They Sound Like... Bloggers
- Bugs Aren't Features
- How to Score Well Without Really Writing
- SAT Challenge: My Entry
- All That I Want
- How to Tell a True Lab Story
- Top Eleven: Time to Vote
- How to Do a Good PowerPoint Lecture
- Dawkins and Theology
- Deep Thoughts from Pop Culture
If anything, the conclusion is even more starkly obvious than it was for John's list...
A full third of that list are posts associated with the SAT Challenge ("How to Score Well Without Really Writing" was the original post about the essay test that kicked it off). Two more are about Richard Dawkins, and a third is a Chuck Klosterman quote that pissed off the hard-core athiests. "Bugs Aren't Features" is me insulting the entire software industry. There's also advice on the correct use of PowerPoint, the post announcing my tenure decision.
Out of that list, there are a total of three posts about science or life in science, and the only one with signficant scientific content gets there because it wraps a swipe at Richard Dawkins around a discussion of quantum optics. The other two are the voting thread for the Top Eleven, and "How to Tell a True Lab Story," which is a colorful Tim O'Brien pastiche about big explosions.
The post about physics funding that got picked for the Best Science Blogging anthology is another three spots down (at least-- I wasn't too careful about the count at that level). It's just behind a post consisting of a graph of my weight for the first six months of last year. The one post about religion that I'm actually really proud of ("Atheist Church Socials") managed less than a third of the pageviews of the Chuck Klosterman thing.
I've always known that the physics content doesn't really draw that much traffic, but seeing it laid out like this is... well, kind of depressing, really. Fortunately, I enjoy writing those posts a lot more than I enjoy taking cheap shots at atheists (which is occasionally viscerally satisfying, but doesn't really produce any worthwhile conversation), or else I'd be tempted to hang it up completely...
- Log in to post comments
More like this
We've tried to keep the content over at Biocurious almost entirely about science, with diversions into things like scientific publishing and life as grad students, well away from the touchy subjects of religion and politics. We're always on the lookout for more traffic, but I would hate to have a weblog where most of the comments and posts are negative in tone and are mainly about christianity or republicans.
To be honest though, I'm not at all surprised that science posts don't seem to draw people in. How often do you see science anywhere else in your daily routine? (Okay, not you or me in particular, but for the non-scientists out there). It is only the rare science writer who reaches a big audience with a popular science book, and I suspect the same will also be true on the internet.
While they might not draw a lot of traffic, I enjoy your science posts a great deal more than the others. Keep 'em up.
The physics posts may produce relatively small traffic, but they produce deep appreciation in those of us who come here for them--well, speaking for myself, anyway. (The recent Basic Concepts series providing more fine examples.) I doubt the people that are dropping in for the controversial topics have nearly as strong a reaction--just drive-by rubberneckers.
I think you have an excellent mix of post topics, and while the frivolous ones invariably generate higher traffic -- my highest hits were on posts with tongue-in-cheek dating advice for geeks, poking fun at celebrity physicists, and my engagement announcement -- there's always the few, the proud, the True Lovers of Science, who appreciate the meatier posts as well. I've actually clipped your two "basics" posts for safekeeping in Bloglines, for future reference. We all need a reminder of the basics from time to time...
Your blog is definitely in my top five. One of the few that I consistently check my feedreader for. Being a pchem grad student I guess I'm not really a non-scientist reader but still. Keep up the good work.
Controversy might get you some drive-by hits, but I can guarantee that it's the physics stuff that keeps the regulars reading.
Yo! Ms. Ouellette! I saw a book on the shelf at B&N with your name on it (yeah, I still shop at actual book stores, I hate trying to buy books on the net, I LIKE browsing shelves).
You never mention that you're a published author type. Or maybe you have, and I haven't seen it, since I've been kinda busy lately haven't had a chance to browse your recent CPP entries. Damn you work!
What do you use to tally your counts? Google Analytics, some top secret Scienceblogs thing, or something else? (I know I've seen you mention Google Analytics before, at least.)
Jamie, I actually have two books out, and both are featured on the sidebar at Cocktail Party Physics. But it's always nice to see them in actual bookstores. I plug the books occasionally -- anyone reading this, feel free to purchase my literary output! -- but ultimately, I'm more interested in promulgating the glories of science. Really. I've got this disgusting, deeply embedded sense of altruism that is keeping me from becoming a self-involved narcissist (like my avatar, Jen-Luc Piquant). So does Chad, which is yet another reason I enjoy reading his blog...
My feeling is, style mght get you noticed in the short term, but it's the substance that loyal readers come back for, in the long term...