Skip to main content

Field of Science Now Taking Applications

Field of Science has come a good distance in its leisurely two years. In keeping with that pace, I thought I'd finally get around to opening up the floodgates to all the newly uninspired science bloggers out there who maybe thought once or twice about joining a network, but ultimately couldn't be bothered.

Field of Science lacks a grand manifesto/mind numbing contract/long winded code of conduct. We're also without a marketing department, a revenue stream, an editorial hierarchy, or corrupting force of any sort as far as I'm aware. In fact, if you look closely, you'll discover that the network itself is more or less just an allusion craftily assembled in order to give the appearance of some sort of official looking structure from which we propel our blog posts from the homely state of obscurity to the lofty realms of authoritative infallibility--which, as everyone knows, is the key to successful science blogging.

Anyway, Field of Science is the new-old science blog unnetwork-anticollective. Which is to say, I just finished a redesign in which I attempt to maximize the Bloggers ability to individualize their blog while still maintaining just enough of the sameness that gives a network its mojo. Having succeeded in spectacular fashion, I must now document just how wonderful and perfect in every way Field of Science has become with a blog post.

With that done, the only thing left to do is go on and on about how easy and hassle free it is to join Field of Science. It is.

Wrapping up, Field of Science has become the undemanding-cutting-edge science blog network you didn't know you were waiting for. Do have a look around, and do drop me a note if you like what you see.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If You Build It,...

Field of Science is a science blog network. FoS is so named because Field of Science is a good, practical name for a website about science, but also--thanks to a certain movie--said name evokes illusions that are, more or less, analogous to what FoS is all about . . . FoS is home to bloggers who are doing actual science and whose blogging is clearly informed by their work. If you are a science blogger and your blog is powered by Blogger (or you wouldn't mind switching over to Blogger), and you are interested in joining FoS , complete an application and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. If you want to know more about the nuts, bolts and actuals, watch this presentation .

A New Wave of Science Blogging?

One can imagine science bloggers would be a (the) primary beneficiary in a landscape where Google ranks sites based on the correctness of factual information provided by the [blog] .  What's more, it is not a stretch to conclude that science bloggers could very well be in the vanguard of a new wave of bloggers who earn Google’s trust by blogging within the confines of what is known. The news that Google is working on a system of ranking sites based on the quality of their facts should be greeted by science bloggers everywhere as a game-changer.

Are Female Science Bloggers More Likely To Blog Anonymously Than Male Science Bloggers?

Google+'s real name policy sparked a lively debate in the science blogosphere. On the side of anonymity it was observed that women risk more than men when they use their real names. We know that women experience 25 TIMES the amount of harassment online that men do. I light of this blanket disparity in risk you might expect to find--or even assume--that the percentage of women in science blogging anonymously is greater than that of their male counterparts. Sifting through the Census of Science Bloggers data I realized I had a sample with which to test this assumption. But to get there I first had to answer another burning question: I wonder what the overall gender ratio is among science bloggers?   The answer, based on the census data, is approximately 2 male science bloggers for every 1 female science blogger. Again, based on the census sample, 15% of all science bloggers post anonymously. Now does that percentage change when you divvy the sample up into male and female?