Labs

The response thus far to the Census of Science Bloggers (2011) has been rather remarkable, especially when you consider it started on a Friday (never a good day to announce). But it's Monday now, which means it's time for this census worker--a hat I'll be wearing for the rest of August--to get to work. The Challenge: How to circulate the Science Blogger Census to the whole of the science blogosphere in such a way that it doesn't become tedious? Having thought about it, I can't say that I've come up with a perfect solution, but I do have a plan that at least tries to minimize the pain. I would ask you, dear science blogger, to join me as a census worker and collect one census from one science blogger you personally know. You will send them a link to this very post (http://goo.gl/FzzZa) where they will find a link to the census form (http://goo.gl/2R31w) and these same instructions requesting that they do as you did--complete the census form and collect ...

Starting (or launching if you like) a much needed subreddit for science blogs: http://www.reddit.com/r/sciblogs/ Think of it as Editor's Picks for the science blogosphere. It's also an effective way to introduce science blogs to the general public. --- I love science. I love blogging. Thus, FoS is a labor of love for me. But I don't just love and enjoy FoS . I'm a fan of all science blogs. The reason for this is an open secret among science blog readers-- science blogs are the best place to get your science. For example, we are expecting, and a few weeks back my wife came home with The Vaccine Book given to her by one of her coworkers. She asked me what I thought about it. Naturally I was skeptical. I first turned to google and quickly found myself sifting through anonymous opinions in a forum. Then it occurred to me that there was probably a reason the name "Dr. Sears" sounded familiar. I'd probably read about him on a science blog. So I went to ...

But before I get to the good stuff--new science bloggers--humor me while I digress and scratch the itch (read: kernel of truth) in the above joke. About this time a year ago Bora left ScienceBlogs. In a post we're all familiar with, Bora speculated about the nature of science blog networks and their future. In that post, he mentions the other science blog networks including Field of Science . Networks he does not mention in that post dated July 19, 2010 include: Wired, Scientopia, Guardian, PLoS, SciAm [1] . Why did Bora omit these science blog networks? Because, at that time, they didn't exist. In the year since PepsiGate the aformentioned nonexistent science blog networks were born. In response to each "birth" the science blogosphere has found a reason or two to navel gaze and congradulate one another ... Inevitably, these meta science blogging posts inspire comparisons and/or lists: of science blog networks . But if you were to use those posts to gener...

While the Census of the Science Blogosphere 2000 to 2010 has only been up for a week, the pace of new entries has slowed to zero, with a total of 112 participants to date. Not a great showing. Nevertheless, it's not like there's a deadline or some other arbitrary finish date. Therefore, if you happen upon the Census and haven't participated, please do. I'll continue to collect data all the way up until this time next year (October 2011), when I'll post another survey for the year 2011 to combine with this one. Links: The Survey: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEdFM1hxdzBfMERqNkE1clhZNEtCOUE6MQ Early Results: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkEYSGrudhmJdGt2cHVsdE9hbW9PTG1CbkFxeFNJMGc&hl=en&authkey=CMLNupMH Oh, and pass it on.

Looking at the recent network centric attempts at visualizing the science blogosphere , I've been inspired to create a bubble motion chart of science blogs for the last decade. The chart will analyze/visualize Location (i.e. blogger, wordpress, scienceblogs.com, etc.), Type (network, independent, etc.), Gender and Anonymity over the last decade. To participate, complete the following survey. The survey is divided into years, so if you only started blogging this year, simply scroll down to 2010 and complete that year's information only. Alternatively, if you've been blogging the entire decade, complete each section for each year you've been blogging . Confidentiality: At the end of the survey I ask for your current URL. I'll use this information to clean-up the data set and drill down in those cases where your blogging arrangement is a unique Type (i.e. Group Blogs, etc.), but I will not publish it. I will, however, make the raw data minus the URL submissions pu...

With the recent growth of Field of Science , an ongoing redesign effort, life getting in the way and the sudden crowding of the science blog networks, I've run up against a couple of areas of need in the operations of FoS that warrant more attention than I have time to spare, and which would most benefit from a set of talents and skills that I simply don't possess. To that end, I'd like to offer up a few speculative job titles should an interested party decide they'd like to carve out a contributing role for themselves here at Field of Science. Editor-at-Large (Publicist/Social Networker/Advocate) - Mention or inclusion of Field of Science has been noticeably lacking from a number of recent meta science blog network discussions. This pattern of omission--in light of the fact that Field of Science predates the vast majority of science blog networks that are the subjects of these discussions--is of concern. The remedy, aside from shaming the various authors into doing be...

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 d...