I am glad to see that your reviews of science blogs are to be published here. The reasons for my pleasure include an interest in your own blog, with its pithy observations on life, and the fact that science is so important and we, the public need to be better informed about it. While the world of blogs does a great job in publicizing every subject under the sun, it is also confusing, especially if you don't know quite what you are looking for. It is great to have someone search through the morass and bring out the gems that lurk like diamonds in the sand.

So thanks and well done and here's looking forward to you completing the series!

Many thanks, warms my heart!

Thanks Martin.

Martin is author of the Aardvarchaeology blog - which I've just realised I've embarassingly mispelled. Sorry Martin! At least I got the URL right. (there's a typo in the fourth paragraph as well, it should read fiefdom).

And cheers to SilverTiger. It's nice having friends come in and pitch for you - although I don't know how management feels about that.

ggw

I think you meant to write accompanied instead of accompanished :)

and catches instead of catchs :-)

I knew I should have run that spellcheck, but I thought it would choke on all those scientific terms. Always next time, and thanks Alf.

ggw

A critique of my writing from Hot Cup of Joe

Joe is "I'm a fourth year anthropology student focusing on archaeology and about to start my graduate work. I spent 12 years in the U.S. Army and 7 years working with juvenile delinquents in places like boot camps, after school programs, and even a wagon train."

Joe's Critique

I encourage you to read the two side by side, and compare points of quotation.

I thank Joe for his contribution to the discourse.

ggw

I have to respectfully disagree with your assessments of Aetiology and Adventures in Ethics and Science. It is the personal tidbits that humanize their blogs and allow us to relate to these scientists as people.

Dr. Free-Ride's Friday Sprog Blogging actually captures one of the stated goals of her blog: "communication between scientists and non-scientists about the issues that matter to both camps." She illustrates a wonderful ability to work science into every day conversation and shows how to make it fun. I hope one day to be able to explain scientific concepts to my child as effectively as she has with her children.

Heh. Good luck in your endeavour. Most people (and especially scientists) can not write, so I think you are in for a bit of a long haul.

There seems to be an attitude among scientists who keep weblogs that all science weblogs are good and should be read because it's Science, and Science is important, damnit! But Sturgeon's Law applies here as much as anywhere, and readers need to cultivate taste and discernment. (It's like wine or cheese or whisky: There's a lot of crap out there, which keeps the punters happy; but once you try the good stuff you don't want to go back).

It is good to someone investigating the notion of science blogging, and questioning the motives and inspirations of the authors. Less heartening to read the predictable knee-jerk responses in other places, of course, but then cliques do not like to be challenged.

The issue of 'personal' versus 'professional' is an interesting one. I agree it's important that society's preconceptions are challenged, that the 'general public' can see that scientists are no more special than anyone else, but I do wonder whether this has been emphasized at the expense of more meaningful intercourse. What is interesting, to me at least, is the personal in the context of the professional. If I want to be bored by science I'll pick up the Journal of Biological Chemistry. If I want gossip! romance! taking little Jemima to school! I'll go to the airport bookshop.

There is a gap in the market. And it is not being filled by most 'science' blogs, especially the ones repeating the same, tired message over and over. What is the point in preaching to the choir?

Hi there,

there have been a couple of further responses to this article -

Reviewing the "Reviewer" (from A Blog Around the Clock)
and
ScienceBlogs under the microscope? (from Respectful Insolence)

Disclosure: the above 2 blogs are part of the ScienceBlogs Network.

ggw

Nice review. I agree with many of your points. I will join the fray in opposition to your comments on personal vs. other sorts of posting. I happen to prefer blogs with meat (or is that meat with my blogs?) but I also like that there is variety.

At this time, as a new blogger (of science ... I'm not on Sceince Blogs) I would like to see less presumption by bloggers of what the reader knows (about the blogosphere itself). But that will probably change as I myself "know" that stuff.

I will try to not forget my humble roots!

ggw: I fixed those two typos for you!

Thanks Christopher! Although the more I keep looking, the more I keep finding. I'm just going to stop looking. :-)

ggw

Coturnix does well enough to get noticed by Nature

I'd say it looks more like you were more concerned with getting your "review" written than actually delving into the blogs you covered. I've been reading the blogs at ScienceBlogs for over a year now and, while there are some I don't particularly care for, each of the ones you covered above have a lot of very in-depth science posts.

And if you think there should be a separation between "personal" and "professional" blogging at scienceblogs, I think you might need to re-evaluate what it means to blog to begin with. The lay-public doesn't want to read post-after-post of technical reports and essays. We want it broken down and made relevant. We want to know that the people who are active in science aren't so different than us.