Dec 31 2010
Four Years
Today marks the end of my fourth year of blogging. It is estimated that 60-80% of new blogs go dead within a month, so I’m happy to have survived for four years. NeuroLogica has fulfilled what I intended for it – to keep me writing on a regular basis, to provide a useful outlet for engaging in the online skeptical conversation, and to attract attention from journalists looking for information or story ideas.
The world of blogging has evolved a bit over the past four years. Technorati tracks blogging trends, and their “state of blogging” report for 2010 notes several trends. They note that bloggers are using more social media to spread their blogs. And blogs have been having an increasing effect on mainstream media. I have definitely noticed this myself. In many cases the science news cycle has expanded to increased a phase of analysis by bloggers, followed by mainstream reporting of that analysis. In the past the media might give a completely bogus report on some science news item, and that would be the end of it, until a month or two later when the popular science journals covered the story in more depth. Now it takes a day or two for science bloggers to dissect and, if necessary, correct the story. This is often followed by the mainstream media then readdressing the story – “Hey, remember that story we told you a few days ago? Well, it turns out it’s BS.”
I also see a trend where journalist are increasingly going to popular science bloggers for information while writing the original report, rather than waiting to get smacked down after they publish. This is a good trend, and I think in order for journalists to survive they will have to take advantage of those scientists and experts who blog.
All things considered, I think blogging has had a positive impact on the flow and quality of information, and it is still not fully mature. I am glad to be a part of it.
Thanks to all my readers, especially those who take the time to regularly comment or who have sent me blogging ideas. Have a great 2011.
12 Responses to “Four Years”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I had a blog (under my real name) for 4 years. But I realized that anyone Googling my name would quickly come to it, and see all I’d written. The point of the blog had been to share thoughts with friends & relatives about personal things going on in my life, the odd funny thing, and politics. At the time, I had no idea that it would spread, and that opposing counsel (I’m an attorney) could & would Google me, and see my personal doubts, concerns, and inner thoughts. Heck, even law students interviewing with me would Google me and see it. So I took it down. Now I just use Facebook.
When I started my blog, dealing with dinosaur paleontology, in mid-2009, my only goal was to see what happened if I simply wrote about one topic that I was passionate about on a regular schedule. A year and a half later, it’s gone way beyond any of my hopes in terms of traffic and visibility. More importantly though, I had no idea that I would become part of a thriving community of science bloggers. The whole Pepsigate fiasco was a huge turning point for me. The quality of people participating in this community was made clear to me – people who are enthusiastic, committed, and hold themselves and each other accountable.
Now I have a completely new view on science communication, journalism, and what I want out of a career. At the beginning, I was someone who was into science. Now, I’m someone who not only wants to make a difference in how it’s communicated, I feel empowered to do it. I know there are others like me. It’s a pretty wonderful thing.
Your posts here and discussions on the SGU are a huge part of my “re-education,” Dr. Novella. You’ve had as much of an impact on my refreshed appreciation of science and skepticism as any of the “big names” like Sagan and Shermer. Best of luck for the new year.
Thank you Dr. for all of your hard work and clear headed analysis.Whenever I hear someone being asked how they came to skepticism,almost invariably they mention the SGU podcast.You are widely respected in the Skeptic community.
Definitely a daily read for me. Congrats and keep on keeping on! In my opinion you provide the clearest analysis out there and are one of the best representatives for skepticism.
Unfortunately I chanced upon this blog only about six months ago.
I’m on holidays at present with little time for internetting and a painfully slow internet connection. In the circumstances, the only internet activity I’ve kept going is this blog.
(Also, even though I am only an amateur, I have a compulsive need to counteract the nonsense spread by the few science cranks you get around here
)
Congratulations for these four years and for doing such a brilliant job. I wish you and us readers many more years of your blog.
Well done Steve, and thank you for all your effort.
I’m in awe of your self-discipline.
If not for the discussions here, I might not have been aware of this site: http://www.anticipation.info/
Perhaps before the next four years are up we can get a neuroscientist’s take on that phenomena.
By neuroscientist, I meant the author of this blog of course.
Congratulations Steve. Thanks for all the effort you put in.
Not sure if you would be interested in sharing the method you use when you blog. Do you sit down and start typing, filling in bits and pieces here and there? Do you mindmap? Do you record what you are going to say vocally and then type out your thoughts etc.?
Thanks in advance.
Steve
My method depends a bit on the topic. If it is mostly commentary, I just write, and then go back and tweak.
If it is an analysis of something, I gather my references and resources, read through them all, organize the post in my mind, and then write. I typically have to go back and flesh out references (time permitting). The post may also evolve as I write it – I don’t always end up in the exact place I envisioned, and I may play with the organization a bit.
The thing about writing, is that you are never really done. You can endlessly tweak, expand, edit, reference, etc. The trick with a daily blog is getting it good enough with the time that you have. Often I table topics because I just don’t have the time to do it justice, or I may wait until the weekend or an evening when I do have the time. Sometimes I choose topics based upon the amount of time I have. Editorials are the quickest. A detailed analysis of a published study takes a lot longer, and a thorough review of a topic takes the longest.
Steven,
Thank you for all your hard work and scholarship…I’ve learned a great deal from you. The thing that most amazes me is what your schedule must be like. I assume you’re a full time academic. You’ve mentioned that you have a family. You are involved in the SGU podcast. And yet you seem to find the time to crank out these amazing blog posts. Where do you find the time? Do you sleep like the rest of us? You must do an enormous amount of research reading for all of this writing. What’s your secret to balancing all of this (family, Yale job, podcast, blog posts, social life, etc). I really am interested.
Chet