Skip to main content

Do Science Bloggers Exercise Free Will?

That's the question--as I stare at the census data in search of a juicy trend--that would seem the most sensational and draw the most readers.  A trend...that challenges the notion that you decide how often you post and how much time you invest in each post.  To find it, having already decided it's there, I broke my brain a couple of times combining three census data sets: (1) Years Blogging; (2) Blogging Frequency; and (3) Time Investment Per Blog Post.  Below are the fruits of my labors.  Did I find the trend I was looking for?  A trend that suggests the longer you blog, the more likely it will be that you will spend 1 to 2 hours writing about one post per week?  Judge for yourself.
Frequency As A Percentage Of Each Group By Years Blogging
Time Per Post As A Percentage Of Each Group By Years Blogging
My feeling is I didn't find a trend. My kung fu is not yet strong enough. Nevertheless, if you're wondering how your blogging habits compare with your peers, now you know. Maybe they know something you don't, like a substantial time investment per post does pay off in the long run--you should try it. Or, you don't have to post every day after all. Or, the secret to blogging longevity.

Oh, and the above is just the end result. How I got there was just as much fun... From my scratch paper:


Comments

  1. I dunno. It seems to me that posters who stick at it probably are either 'post little and often' (i.e. everyday) or post regularly about once a week.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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?

How to tell the difference between a Science Blog Network, a Fanny Pack and a Backpack

This is a network: http://scienceblogs.com This is a fanny pack: http://blogs.nature.com This is a backpack: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/science-blogs/ This is a network: http://www.fieldofscience.com/ This is a fanny pack: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ This is a backpack: http://gu.com/scienceblogs This is a network: http://sciblogs.co.nz/ This is a fanny pack: http://blogs.plos.org This is a backpack: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ This is a network: http://scientopia.org/ This is a fanny pack: http://gam.southernfriedscience.com/ This is a backpack: http://www.labspaces.net/blogs