Build Your Own Science Blog Network

No, really, build your own science blog network.

The merits of being on a network are many (community, traffic, search ranking, etc.), but the one that matters the most is the prestige a blogger gains by association with the other bloggers in the network and through being part of a professional organization. The reason for this is straightforward--the first impressions a blogger makes are largely built on split-second judgments, and among the things that can be judged the quickest are appearances and the company you keep. If you're part of a professional looking network that includes another blogger who a reader already judges favorably, you're ahead of the game even before the reader reads word one. That doesn't mean you don't need to still be a good/great blogger to have an impact, you do, but being part of a network is a foot in the door every single day of the year. All you have left to do is raise your game to take advantage of the privileged position being part of a network grants you. It is this privileged position, this perpetual foot in the door (not traffic, pagerank or friends) that the ScienceBlogs.com blog network is looking for ways to monetize. It is the future prospect of guilt-by-association (there's that word again) such a compromise entails that helped to spur so many bloggers to leave SB. No matter how you cut it, #SbFail is proof that the network effect is real and that it matters.

When I first started Field of Science I was pleasantly surprised to find that science bloggers were blazing their own trail. They'd resisted, for the most part, the urge to indulge in the sensationalism and rhetorical excess that was fueling and defining the rest of the blogosphere. This intrinsic resistance to short-term gain in blogging has much to do with the scientific method and uniqueness of the people drawn to science in the first place. But I would go further still and suggest that SB deserves some of the credit as well. It gave science bloggers something to aspire to. A reason, beyond simple adherence to an unwritten ethic, to blog credibly, consistently, for the long-term. But now that SB has been, how should I put this, unmasked, does it still play that role? If you'd argue that it does, has the example it is setting changed at all as a consequence? Has the type of science blogger SB is encouraging (seeking) shifted away from those that value the science and good opinion of their peers toward those that are equally or primarily interested in making money? So long as SB remains the best option (or chief steppingstone) for science bloggers hoping to achieve success in blogging (however they define it), SB is going to have an inordinate influence on how science bloggers define science blogging.

The benefits of being on a network are not in dispute. There's also room (and arguably an imperative) for alternatives to SB to emerge. It's all that other stuff, the endemic issues inherent in the network model, and the stuff that being on a network puts out of your control that still stand in the way. If only there was a way to create your own science blog network. One where you, the science bloggers, could be in control of who was on it. One you could afford to host. One where the technology behind it was both powerful enough to compete with the big boys while simple enough for you to manage it in passing. One that was no more demanding than the blogging it is meant to augment.

If only, instead of being forced to beg and plead for fish, there was a way to learn to fish. Well, there is.

You can create your own science blog network, putting you in complete control, for under $12 a year. Your network will be hosted and powered by Google, who, at no cost to you, will employ a crack team of super talented technology professionals to not only keep your network up and running, but to bring you regular innovations. What's more, because you're partnered with Google, your SEO will be the envy of the competition by default, and you can take for granted the innate integration with Google's ever growing list of tools...



Over the next few months I will teach a course on how to create your own science blog network. The total cost to take the course will be under $12, and that will be to pay for your network's first year of hosting. Whether you want to create a science blog network to rival SB, or you have an idea for a small exclusive network for you and your colleagues, or you want to leave the door open to the possibilities, it's up to you. The goal is not to tell you what to do, it's to show you how easy it is to do it. It's to empower you, the scientist blogger, so that you don't have to compromise, or be subject to someone else's whims, shortcomings or worse.

If that sounds like time well spent to you, class is in session: Science Blog Networks 101.

Edit: 08/12/10 - Class cancelled due to lack of enrollment. However, I'd still like to explore collaborations along the above lines, so if you're late or decide later that you're interested, leave a comment or email me.

Defining Science Blogging

The Virginia Heffernan piece in the NYT Magazine about science blogs (link not necessary for the few people reading this post) has gotten a lot of traction thanks to science bloggers. The reason for this is it represented the opinion of a popular writer printed in a mass media publication, and so responding to it holds the promise of traffic. It also helps that Ms. Heffernan's opinions were not above reproach, giving critics and targets of the piece something to sink their teeth into. However, take that same article and post it word-for-word anonymously on some unknown blog and the reaction it would garner from the science blogging community would be...crickets. Why? Because on its own, Heffernan's article about science blogs is neither insightful, compelling or correct. So not only would it not inspire a response (assuming anyone would bother to read it in its entirety), it would not warrant a correction--were it posted by a nobody on a nowhere site. For this reason I take a dim view of the science bloggers validating Heffernan's opinions with a response. It's insulting to their core audience and it's not science blogging. Science blogging would sooner shine a light on a nobody on a nowhere site who says something of substance than pretend a know-nothing managed to light the science blogosphere on fire in spite of the fact that she was wrong about everything--all in trade for a few extra hits.

So there, I said it. In science blogging, blogging is second to science (read: substance).

A Way Forward

For obvious reasons--I'm building a science blog network here--I've been paying close attention to the ScienceBlogs.com Diaspora. It is always fascinating to find out what a place looks like from the inside, and there's been a lot of that type of reflection going on. Then there's the teaching moment, the learning from SB's mistakes, but to be honest, the mistakes they've made (and are making) are pretty basic--so there's not a lot to take note of other than to marvel at how the thing managed to survive as long as it has. Finally, there's the prospect of picking up some of SB's talent. I admit, I've been circling the devastation not unlike a vulture, and I've even made a few inquiries and posted a few strategic comments around the fringes in an effort to at least get the word out to departing SBers that there is an alternative science blog network out there. One that doesn't suffer from a lack of vision or the corrupting influence of a financial motive/burden...

But this post isn't the open invitation to departing SBers to join FoS that you might expect. This post is a response of sorts to Bora's epic farewell. If you haven't read it, do so now.

If I told you that Bora echoes some of the themes I've been talking about for years would you believe me? What if I provided you with links? Or witnesses? Well, I will, upon request. However, the point of bringing up my history is not to say I'm smarter than Bora, or even as smart as Bora. It is to illustrate that I agree with Bora, not out of convenience or advantage, but because that's my honest assessment of the state of play. SB's disintegration is an opportunity for science blogging to evolve into a more sophisticated, diverse and dynamic species.

To that end, I have a contribution to make. Or rather, a vision to share.

FieldofScience.com costs a little over $11/year to run. That's it. There's no hosting costs, no tech support expense, no staff or other full or part-time paid position. FoS is hosted by Google, who can handle all the traffic we can send their way without breaking a sweat. FoS is powered by Blogger.com, which is owned by Google, and if you know anything about the Internet, then the fact that our blogging software is a property of Google is really all you need to know. And if your opinion of Blogger.com is over a year old, then you don't know Blogger.com. The picture I'm painting is this. You don't need a fully staffed media group replete with editors, writers, sales, technical, personnel and accounting departments in order to have a science blog network. All you need is a little vision, a willingness to learn a few simple technical tricks, a passion and a few dollar bills.

If you have those things, you're probably already seriously considering creating your own science blog network or collective with your fellow friends and familiars. If that's you, I would like to propose we create a network of networks. That is to say, I'll share with you the know-how I've gathered in creating and maintaining FoS (no need to reinvent the wheel), and in turn we collaborate to create like science blog networks. The example I have in mind is the Gawker group of blogs which, while each is unique (in theme and content), each shares a like platform and certain navigation elements.

Combining the Gawker model and the FoS model, we have the tools, the template and the technology to create a series of science themed blog networks that, while individual, compliment one another. There could be a science blog network for women scientists, one for science writers, another for the politicization of science, and still another for the infrequent science blogger. The list goes on and on. Just consider all the science carnivals past and present. All those themes could be networks of their own, and each of them a part of a larger, mutually beneficial group of networks.

To me, that would be a bright future for science blogging. One I'm fully prepared to invest heavily in.

Edward

Inured To Our Ignorance

inure: to harden somebody to something: to make somebody used to something unpleasant over a period of time, so that he or she no longer is bothered or upset by it

Here is a google trend for you. It shows the beginning of the decline in our interest in coverage of the ongoing gulf oil spill.

I don't bring it up to make you feel bad for going on with your life. I certainly have. I even went to the beach last weekend and sarcastically told my wife during the ride down that one day we'll reminisce about swimming in the ocean to our grandchildren who will react with a mix of disbelief and disgust (The ocean!? Gross!). My better half didn't find it amusing and used it as a case in point for why it's generally better if I don't talk. She's right.

Anyway, it's a familiar trend. We dispoil it, feel guilty for a bit then move on (read: forget about it). While we watch with increasing passivity as THE GULF OF MEXICO is turned into a toxic wasteland, I can't help but dwell on that last bit, that part about forgetting about how the world used to be, or even having ever been aware that the world was once very...different.

When was the last time your shadow was cast by the light of the Milky Way?

Astronaut's eye view: Mars Express orbiting the Red Planet

Cool video from the ESA showing what Mars bound astronauts would see from their cockpit -- the Red Planet turning below.


Time-compressed video of single Mars Express orbit 27 May 2010, with inset showing altitude.


Celestia simulation of Mars Express orbital path 27 May 2010

Source: ESA

What Kind Of Scientist Do You Want To Be?

Over the course of assembling FoS and finding ways to contribute "content" that compliments that of FoS's science bloggers, I've stumbled onto the answer to a question that has befuddled me all my many years, What do you want to do when you grow up?

Of course it's a little late for me, but maybe the method by which I discovered my true calling could be of some use to someone not so...old.

1. Quite by accident, having decided on science as the general theme of my favorite website, I was halfway to my answer without even knowing it.

2. Fast forwarding to today and taking a critical look at my subsequent contributions to my favorite website over the past year--see the LPB and /r/FoS/(?)--and the mystery of what I wanted to do when I grow up is definitively solved.

So what's the answer to the question? Astrobiologist.

But back to the method.

Step One: Look at your list of favorite websites and glean from them a general field of interest. Examples might be entertainment, business, games, food, etc. For me it was science. The key here is you're not forcing it. You've generated a list of favorite websites already. All you're doing is reading into that list what, at the end of the day, you're doing with your free time.

Step Two: Start keeping track of what content within this general category is most interesting to you. In this sense, I think the means are important. In my case, I wanted to populate a blog and forum with only the most interesting things I came across. So I wasn't just highlighting a list of bookmarks. I was selecting from that list of bookmarks only those items I thought worth sharing (would be interesting to others). Of course I'm still relying on my own discriminating tastes in making these determinations, so the end result was what's most interesting to me. To put it into perspective, what you see on the LPB and /r/FoS/ is only a very small percentage of the science content I've perused over the past year.

Broken down I've simply scrutinized my online habits for clues to what interests me. It took a bit of structure and discipline (editing FoS) for me to be able to narrow it down to the point that I could put my finger on a very specific vocation, but that's just me. Chances are if you scrutinize your own unique virtual meanderings with this question in mind, you'll find that you've already left yourself a trail of bookmarks and favorites leading to what you should be doing with your life.

Alternative Research Blogging Widget(s)

Recently John sent me the code for a ResearchBlogging.org widget that he wanted added to his sidebar. While adding the widget I discovered that it was highly uncustomizable. That is to say, it is what it is, and if it doesn't fit the scheme of your blog (height, width, color, etc.), well, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Needless to say, I like my cookies soft and chewy (read: malleable).

One solution I hit upon was to piggyback on Research Blogging's twitter account (ResearchBlogs) and Twitter's profile widget builder (which enables you to customize, among other things, the widgets colors and dimensions). What's more, Research Blogging's twitter feed includes posts from their News blog.

Another minimalist solution was to run a Research Blogging feed (pick one) through a pipe where you can then use the badge option to add a somewhat customizable widget to your web page.

To compare, here's a page with all 3 options side-by-side.

If you have another solution, or need help implementing any of the above, feel free to leave a comment.