If you aren't interested in reaching new people, why have a public blog?

Jan 29 2010 Published by under Blogging, Debate and Discussion

I'm elevating a comment I made in a prior thread. We're chatting about the Nature Network exercise in self-reflection about the insularity of their blog community. I made two points.
True that there is a population for any blog that should theoretically be in the audience but that departs because of the "tone". Allegedly I, for example, lost some readers because I extend latitude to certain antediluvian commenters. It should be a consideration.
What should also be a consideration is who is being excluded because they simply do not know you exist- individual blog, blog consortium or even the whole science blogosphere.

It was a good critique, but there are always going to be tradeoffs.I happen to think that one of the good features here at Sb is that we start with a very open approach from which individuals bloggers can tighten up if desired. This can be incredibly fine grained. I've had a commenter or three that others of my readers object to and want to know why I don't ban them. Other Sb blogs that I share readership with may have done so. To the extent that we overlap in blog-interest, readers can find the content without being exposed to the 'clownery of some of my commenters. Perhaps I lose a few voices, and I regret that, but I have to draw my own lines in making what I think of as my blog's tone what it is.
There are other types of commenters who pervade other Sb blogs that simply don't come around here and if they did express that type of behavior here would be moderated or banned. Yet I don't think Sb is the weaker for the Pharyngaloids, ERV's selfconsciously outre fanbois, Laden's "the real" neandertals or even Ed Brayton's libertardian halfthinkers. I think we are the stronger for it- as a collective blog enterprise.
There was a comment at that NN thread (see problem? I have no idea which blog it is on, see Munger's comment about individualizing the blogs) about writing for her own peeps and not giving a hang about traffic. Why have a public blog? There are more private social media and fora. More generally, why have the NN blogs visible to anyone other than those who register and login?
The very fact one engages in *public* blogging says that one is interested in reaching new people. Period. After that we are merely discussing whether you are doing a good job meeting performance goals...

Right? Why are you putting stuff out there for the entire Internet to see if you don't mean to reach people who might be interested in what you have to say, but you have no other way to reach them. In a word, perfect strangers. There are a plethora of controlled-access technologies that would serve the same purpose if all you were after was a private circle of friends.

91 responses so far

  • steffi suhr says:

    Hah! I didn't have the chance to answer to your comment yet, and here we go 🙂
    By the way, here's the comment on the NN thread you referred to about traffic to an individual blog.
    I agree with what Maxine said there, and it's not what you think it is. The thing is: we still do get new visitors to our blogs, but it's more through 'recommendations' or word-of-mouth. This, I think, means for us that we get people looking at our blogs who are genuinely interested. Talking about my own blog, people seem to stumble across it on a fairly regular basis, although (admittedly) probably most often from within Nature Network. But I am quite happy with that: I don't delude myself into thinking that I have such interesting things to say that everyone always has to hear/read them... (nor do I post enough for that to work!).
    Something else that's important for me (and again, I think for at least a small number of people on NN as well): I often take my time reading/commenting/digesting information. I try not to make up my mind about something right away, and if I do, I don't blurt it out immediately. That approach works on NN - it doesn't work so well on sb, in my (very limited) experience.
    (p.s. of course I am not speaking for all NNers!)

  • Funny. The vast majority of people who read Scienceblogs on a given day probably read the blogs you name. How utterly gracious of you to suggest that those readers ... the readers ... don't weaken the enterprise.
    You are a piece of work, Drugmoney.

  • neurolover says:

    "More generally, why have the NN blogs visible to anyone other than those who register and login?"
    I'm confused -- because all blogging communities consist of far more readers than writers/commenter (i.e. the lurker phenomenon)? They read 'cause they have something they want to hear, though they don't want to participate in the conversation. The same is true at seminars, no?

  • I blog to vent frustrations (hey man misery loves company), celebrate my (albeit minor) successes, but more importantly to solicit ideas and feedback from hopefully unlike-minded colleagues that do research. The idea is to always get new folks and thus get new ideas and personalities so spar sometimes friendly, sometimes not so friendly with.

  • "There are other types of commenters who pervade other Sb blogs that simply don't come around here and if they did express that type of behavior here would be moderated or banned."
    ZOMG ground rules!!!11!!eleventy!!! You're excluding people!
    ERV's blog is awesome, and I'm not just saying that because endogenous retroviruses were my thang as a postdoc. It's one of the most entertaining blogs out there, and one of the first feeds I check in Google Reader every morning.

  • Katharine says:

    Name Withheld (Greg Laden) -
    Way to misread what DrugMonkey wrote. I don't think he was badmouthing readers in any way.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    How utterly gracious of you to suggest that those readers ... the readers ... don't weaken the enterprise.
    If you were capable of reading for content instead of merely looking for reasons to lash out, Name Witheld, you would realize that we agree. I am responding to the perception in NN land that all the commenters here at Sb are jerks who have nothing good to say. Of course, Pharynguloids the one most frequently mentioned by name because they don't seem to realize there are other blogs here, I was trying to help them out.
    because all blogging communities consist of far more readers than writers/commenter (i.e. the lurker phenomenon)? They read 'cause they have something they want to hear, though they don't want to participate in the conversation.
    sure, but then why all this introspection and whinging about why their commenting is so insular? we're talking here about their goals stated or heavily implied. This is not (only) about them saying they are doing fine and me* jumping in to mansplain how they are doin it rong.
    *I do have a slight interest in that I happen to agree, more or less, with their broader goals for more commentary on papers directly. So from that standpoint I might levy criticism even if they *did* think their approach was satisfying their goals.

  • steffi suhr says:

    I tried to comment earlier, but my comment was held up in a moderating queue. Did it get lost? I am bored waiting now.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    ZOMG ground rules!!!11!!eleventy!!! You're excluding people!
    Really? Who?
    but yeah, I have a ground rule which is bloggers get to do whatever they like with their comment policies. importantly, other people get to criticize them for it if they want to.
    I don't think he was badmouthing readers in any way.
    Neither did Name Witheld, really. That's the beauty of being a quote miner.
    ss: how do you find that comment link? I just can't figure it out. and yeah, I can see that there are different opinions on NN :-), just throwing in my opinion. Still, when the voices that are officially affiliated with NPG are saying one thing, it is hard not to view it as the dominating position...
    btw this latter observation ties into the reason why I keep posting here instead of commenting over there. I've now seen opinion from at least three NPG editors and what I assume is the tech guy behind the NN platform asserting (very strongly in some cases) their lack of affection for the pseudonymous/anonymous internet. In at least two cases combined with implied threats against me for comments I made that were critical of the editorial process at NPG titles. After all of that, I don't care what half-assed reluctant statements they make about "well, you can pseud register here so we're cool", I simply don't trust them. There is a certain trust between blog host (whomever has access to the IP log) and reader/commenter when it comes to identity. This is reinforced when one shows that one has no inclination to out, even when one is really ticked off (absent something horrifically legally actionable and no, not in that stupid nightmare of UK libel law that needs to be changed way). This is demolished when one yammers about how one detests pseuds and threatens that "somebody" is going to out them, etc. It is very hard to regain that trust.

  • "but yeah, I have a ground rule which is bloggers get to do whatever they like with their comment policies."
    I thought that was supposed to be A Bad Thing. Just wondering if the people who think that will call you on it the same way they call other people on it.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    I thought that was supposed to be A Bad Thing.
    That is because you are paying attention to sphincter-ratcheting straw-man erectors instead of the actual discussion.
    This whole "piss on my carpet" thing is a disingenuous trope. Nobody but nobody claims that bloggers can't set their own comment policies. They may make fun of them, and seriously castigate arbitrary excesses of moderation that are hypocritical, but that's about it.
    The trouble is, those who talk about their own house always, and I mean always are really talking about setting policy for other people. Talking about how the whole blogosphere should operate. Whinging about someone calling them a ridiculous douchebaggio or some other PhysioProffism. That, my friend, is why they get called to account.
    That, you know, and for missing the blindingly obvious truth about their substituting their personal preferences for AbsoluteGodGivenTruthAboutCivilBehaviorInPublic11!!!!111

  • "That, you know, and for missing the blindingly obvious truth of their substituting their personal preferences for AbsoluteGodGivenTruthAboutCivilBehaviorInPublic11!!!!111"
    There's a lot of that about. Everywhere. In all contexts. Blogosphere and IRL.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Sure. Lots of people would like to advance their view and preferences as the way everyone should behave. 'course the difference lies in whether you are able to understand that you have a viewpoint and are trying to influence the community versus insisting that your viewpoint is not merely your preference but the True and Natural Right Way of Everything.
    Fans of civility are universally of this latter type which is why they cannot field an actual argument and lapse into the most flagrant of hypocritical behaviors at the drop of a hat. If you have actually thought about why you believe things and act in certain ways, you have a tendency to actually be able to express that to others. And you are less likely to come off as the complete and utter hypocrite.
    (but you may emit just as much spittle)

  • Reading that Nature Network comment thread you linked to was like being at some fucking Magdalen College snifter snooter and having watercress sangwiches shoved up my nose. CRIKEY!

  • steffi suhr says:

    how do you find that comment link?
    It's a trick only those people get shown who have been through the gruesome NN initiation rites, which involve having watercress sandwiches stuffed in one's orifices.
    (ok, the way I do it is by clicking on 'Flag as inappropriate', then you can copy the link from there without the obvious last bit)

  • "Fans of civility are universally of this latter type"
    Universally, eh? Talk about a strawman... I believe I'm on record as saying that I enjoy the politer environs of NN, but also enjoy more rambunctious blogs in other places. Horses for courses, different strokes for different folks, etc. I just can't find the damn comment.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    ok, the way I do it is by clicking on 'Flag as inappropriate', then you can copy the link from there without the obvious last bit
    But....it looks like you have to be logged in to get that flag link, yes?

  • Maybe this will do for starters...
    (Thanks, Steffi! I've never known how to do that either).

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Horses for courses, different strokes for different folks, etc.
    Right, which places you opposed to the "don't piss on my carpet" crowd who really, when you flush 'em out, mean that they think everyone else should refrain from offending their tender sensibilities.

  • What if I don't want people pissing on my carpet, but think it's fine for them to piss on other carpets, as long as the other carpets' owners are OK with the smell? (Some people are into that).

  • DrugMonkey says:

    of course mostly the sphincter-ratcheted crowd confuse spilling a little water with the full race horse treatment so perhaps they are not into that after all and it is only the ability to distinguish spilt liquids that is at issue

  • steffi suhr says:

    See, this is where I check out - I get the impression you're just being confrontational to be confrontational. Boooooooring.

  • Mad Hatter says:

    True that there is a population for any blog that should theoretically be in the audience but that departs because of the "tone"
    I actually think you lose some commenters, like me, not because of "tone" but because we can't get here before all the rabid SB readers say everything there is to say on a subject!

  • DrugMonkey says:

    I get the impression you're just being confrontational to be confrontational. Boooooooring.
    No, no, no. You are supposed to accuse me of just doing it "for the traffic" at this point.
    /mansplainin'

  • I can't quite figure out how this conversation has got quite so ratty. It has certainly been interesting and at least had the personal benefit of directing my attention to pastures new. I think there is probably general agreement that the internet is big enough to cope with the diversity that is to be found on SB and NN. Neither is as homogenous as some seem to think - which is a good thing.
    I agree with DrugMonkey's original point that collective blogs do have a tendency to be insular. I realised this was true of NN (to an extent) even before I signed on there but the great advantage to joining up was being able to reach a ready-made audience.
    The recent questions from the people who run the site (I think it was Lou Woodley who raised it on Twitter), seemed to me to be a genuine query about how to improve NN's reach, rather than any sort of whinge. I'm certainly keen to explore options. Oddly perhaps, the discussions here and on NN seems to have had some beneficial effect of opening eyes (mine at least!).

  • I think most Blogs fall in popularity because they get boring and clubby. Too often the problem is bloggers jabbering to each other about the same stuff they found on someone else's blog. If, as a blogger, you find yourself writing about something you read on another blog... STOP. Blogging about someone else's blogging is the intellectual equivalent of snatching food out of someone else mouth because you think you can chew it better. Don't. It's just gross and stupid.
    Definitely I think it's also a mistake for bloggers to blame commenters for lack of success. It's exactly the opposite. Comment-squashing is always a mistake. The chance to comment keeps people coming back, and crazy threads are often way better than the original blog entry. I've been reading this blog on and off almost from the beginning, and I've left hundreds of comments under maybe a dozen different names, from IP addresses (real and proxied) all over the world. Some of my sockpuppets have been heros. Some have been villains. Nothing changes on my side of the keyboard, of course, and I'm not trying to play games. It's just that sometimes I say smart popular things, and sometimes I make an ass of myself. Either way it's good for the blog. My nuggets of wisdom are just that, and when I'm stupid at least everyone else gets the pleasure of ripping me a new asshole. It's like going to a panto (melodrama play for the Americans here) -- fun to cheer the hero, boo the villain. We all pretend, but no one really takes it too seriously (I hope).
    As for the NN blogs -- I know some of the editors who pushed for them, and have invested personally in them, and I used to participate in them myself. The problem with the NN blogs is they're too boring. The last thing I want to read is a bunch of lame journal clubby discussion or some failed postdoc's political views. The NN bloggers (and bloggers in general) need to remember what their expertise is. They need to blog from a unique perspective. Nature puts out a newsletter for Nature authors called 'Nurture', which is actually quite interesting. Editors tell the behind-the-scenes stories about why they wanted to publish certain papers. That newsletter would make a decent blog. Or how about a blog that covers the weirdest shit submitted to Nature journals each week? I know they get this stuff. Have you ever asked an editor at a top-flight journal about the weirdest paper they've ever seen submitted? Or craziest author? Or nuttiest response to to reviewers? Some of these stories are hilarious! The blog would be entertaining and informative. Nature would get fewer of the submissions it ridicules, and we'd all get a good laugh. At the very least, NN could run a blog titled 'perspectives' or something, where the blog is mini-reviews written by editors. These editors see all sorts of interesting work, some of which they publish, some of which they done. And they go to meetings. Lots of meetings. And they talk, with each other and with leading scientists all over. I'd love to read about what they thought were the most interesting developments in a particular field. Of course this would require a little more effort than rambling about some their blog or someone else's, or the latest election results. But the best blogs are never navel gazing murmurs are they? If bloggers want us to read their stuff, they've got to write stuff worth reading. Simple as that.

  • Propter Doc says:

    Is anyone actually going to call Comrade PhysioProf out for this?
    Reading that Nature Network comment thread you linked to was like being at some fucking Magdalen College snifter snooter and having watercress sangwiches shoved up my nose. CRIKEY!
    NatureNetwork has a far more international group of bloggers than scienceblogs.com. It isn't just the British over there, and I find this kind of stereotypical bullshit to be absurd, ironically more absurd than CPPs usual bullshit.
    Seriously, your contributing nothing to the discussion, you are reinforcing some pretty grotty class stereotypes about the British, and if anyone did as much about Americans over here, they'd be handed their arses on a plate so fast they wouldn't know what hit them.

  • Lou Woodley says:

    It's been really interesting to see the amount of discussion that's arisen as a result of the original comment thread on the NN team blog. It's been useful to get some very helpful feedback on improvements that need to be made on NN, as well as eye-opening about some of the opinions currently held about NN and SB.
    Just to reiterate Stephen's point - my original question about whether NN is too insular was a request for feedback on everyone's perception of the site and what we can do to make it somewhere where anyone who wants to leave a comment on a post feels that they can do so within our community guidelines.
    From my perspective, just because we have certain guidelines for preferred behaviour on NN that doesn't imply any kind of statement on what happens elsewhere, nor should it discourage people from participating in multiple communities should they want to. I'd be happy to welcome SB members to NN whenever they want to comment on a post and hope that we're similarly welcome here. Just like the real world, the web is a richer place for having diverse communities and I'd prefer we had an exchange of opinions than homogeneity.
    So thanks for the useful blog suggestions Dr Anonymous, I'll follow them up. And thanks steffi for the tips on linking to specific comments - I didn't know about that either!

  • Eva says:

    I've just linked Dr. Anonymous' comment over on the discussion going on at NN, because I thought it was interesting. I also have some responses, mainly as NN reader, although of course I also blog there, but I find it easier to talk about other blogs that my own:
    The problem with the NN blogs is they're too boring. The last thing I want to read is a bunch of lame journal clubby discussion or some failed postdoc's political views.
    There are not that many political views blogged about at NN, but I get the point, I think. It depends on the audience. When I was struggling through my PhD, thinking it would never end, and unsure what to do after that, the blogs I got the most support from were two Nature Network blogs that were largely about career transitions, by people who either went through the same thing as me simultaneously, or had already survived it all. Maybe that is only interesting to a niche group, but does that matter? There is a popular network of knitting bloggers out there. Or so I hear, because they're always brought up as example of niche blogging, but as a non-knitter I have never felt I needed to check it out.
    There is of course the risk/observation that within one network many blogs take on the same voice, and I do see that at NN, admittedly. But not exclusively. Stripped Science is a cartoon, for example, and nothing like any of the other blogs on the network.
    The NN bloggers (and bloggers in general) need to remember what their expertise is. They need to blog from a unique perspective.
    First of all: need? I don't think bloggers "need" to do anything. Some of the most interesting blogs and blog posts came about quite serendipitously. Carl Zimmer is not exactly an expert on tattoo art, yet he ended up with THE definitive collection of science tattoos on the web.
    But I agree that if someone does something really interesting, really unique, then it would be very cool if they did blog about it. One of the newer NN blogs is Adventures of an Astronaut Wannabe and I think this does fit the bill of what you're after. (this post in particular)
    Or how about a blog that covers the weirdest shit submitted to Nature journals each week?
    This would be hilarious, but I doubt that NPG (lording over NN, so to speak) would agree with it. The final decisions on much of NN lies with people who are not themselves part of the team running it, and who are often not bloggers, so that's going to be very hard to push.

  • Bob O'H says:

    Is anyone actually going to call Comrade PhysioProf out for this?

    I don't know about other people, but I don't take CPP's comments seriously.
    Actually, I'm not sure I should take DrugMonkey's comments that seriously either - he seems to be tweaking us. For the traffic, I guess.

  • Heather says:

    Just for kicks, I am going to agree with DM on a couple of things:
    "Still, when the voices that are officially affiliated with NPG are saying one thing, it is hard not to view it as the dominating position..."
    "Those who talk about their own house always, and I mean always, are really talking about setting policy for other people."
    I've felt the truth of these.
    It would be nice to be recognized, even if we don't YET have individually personalizable blog pages, as individuals with different points of view. (As Stephen mentioned.) As different there as here, although the bloggers who stay long-term maybe converge on a working arrangement among ourselves, and we recognize a certain clubbiness that comes from hanging around with identifiable online personas for years. It's not intentionally exclusive.
    Dr. Anonymous' complaint about many NN blogs' boringness is duly noted (and anticipated). Perhaps the vetting process is not as draconian as that performed by those mandated by Discover Magazine or Seed Media. Perhaps there are more currently working scientists (meaning, in the field or at the bench) among the Nature Network bloggers, and perhaps that meets the needs of other readers. Live and let live.
    It's still not clear to me, though, after all this time, what the goals of NPG are by letting us working scientists shoot the breeze over there rather than finding our own way on Blogger or other sites. Increasing site traffic? I don't think it's just that. There are clearly some non-tangibles that the powers that be seem to be interested in promoting, that reflect well somehow on the Nature brand. I don't mind helping them out in that, and they've given us quite a bit of free rein to date.
    P.S. I do the comment-link thing the way steffi does, but I hope it gets much more intuitive shortly (Lou and others may ensure that?).

  • bikemonkey says:

    Apparently you missed our discussion about rednecks, Propter. Maybe you should have a grotty discussion of class in British academia. Heck, I only read the one thread over at NN and already the stench of Oxbridge elitism was starting to seep under the door.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    we still do get new visitors to our blogs, but it's more through 'recommendations' or word-of-mouth. This, I think, means for us that we get people looking at our blogs who are genuinely interested.
    This is a problem with NN's lack of stats. Comments tend to run only 5% or fewer of visits. If the NN bloggers don't realize that those 95% are finding them, how do they know the first thing about 'genuine' versus other grades of interest?
    As Bora pointed out, the tech limitation is a huge contributor to how NN bloggers view the nature of blogging. The affect not to care who reads them and why, perhaps, because they cannot determine these things.
    I'd suggest a de-lurk meme but the comment registration will block results...

  • The huffing and puffing at NN is cracking my ass up this morning. Backchannels. Conspiracies. Rulez and traffics? Reminds me of high school when the kids driving the shitty, falling apart, rusty cars would talk smack about the kids driving the shiny sports cars because they were celosa. Petty and pathetic.
    Not that you can say "celosa" on NN.

  • Propter is right that there is a more diverse representation of nationalities (both nation of birth and current nation of residence) on NN than on SB.
    Dr Anon, you made some good points which deserve some more thought. I only realised this on the second reading, though. The first time through, you lost me at "failed postdocs". What century is this, again?!

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Propter is right that there is a more diverse representation of nationalities (both nation of birth and current nation of residence) on NN than on SB.
    And do you think that this, just maybe, might be a contributing factor in why some people would like to see NN let down the drawbridges a little bit?

  • Possibly. Not that I've heard anyone explicitly make that point. And I'm with you on the drawbridges, I've said that from the start.

  • Eva says:

    I left a comment earlier, but it had some links in it, so it's probably stuck in a spam filter.

  • C'mon, Propt, admit it! Magdalen College snifter snooter is totally fucking hilarious. AMIRITE?

  • Bob O'H says:

    But only if you can pronounce Magdalen properly.

  • PS Another (no URL editing but more click-intensive) way to find the URL for a specific comment on Nature Network is to:
    - click the commenter's name (goes to their NN profile)
    - click their "Activity" (goes to list of their commments)
    - click the comment you want (identifable by first few words)
    - this takes you to the comment with the comment-specific URL showing, which you can cut'n' paste as usual.
    Probably sounds a bit long-winded, but only three clicks.

  • I am insulted that you would even consider the possibility that Comrade PhysioProf might not know how to pronounce Magdalen College. I have attended Magdalen College snifter snooters, and even indulged when the Fellows' snuff box was proffered.

  • Just remember not to sit on the wrong lawn, Comrade, or you might be hauled off to the dungeon. Or at least not invited to the Fellows' sherry and canapes.

  • Isabel says:

    "cars because they were celosa. Petty and pathetic."
    Yes, poor kids mocking rich kids because they are jealous is sooooo petty and pathetic.
    petty??
    pathetic??
    Really?
    Yes Isis, they need to grow up and learn to mock poor people like all the hip grown-ups do.
    Mocking poor people again Isis - I guess this is one of your "community goals", which is why it does not qualify as uncivil - and paying a sponsor to spread the word? Not ironic at all!
    Drugmonkey: I think this is relevant to the blog traffic discussion; what is the deal with the "selected for you" paid links at the bottom of posts on SB? Apparently, for $10./mo anybody can pay to have a particular post recommended to others. Am I understanding this correctly, or am I missing something? Who is forking over the cash - the individual blog owners? The interface looks so similar to the "related posts" links found on many blogs, it's not immediately obvious that they are paid links. Something sleazy and non-egalitarian about that in the science blog'o'sphere. Does NN offer similar opportunities to promote blog posts?

  • Apparently, for $10./mo anybody can pay to have a particular post recommended to others. Am I understanding this correctly, or am I missing something? Who is forking over the cash - the individual blog owners? The interface looks so similar to the "related posts" links found on many blogs, it's not immediately obvious that they are paid links. Something sleazy and non-egalitarian about that in the science blog'o'sphere.

    LOON ALERT!

  • DuWayne says:

    I am totally curious now - am I one of the asshole commentors people have asked you to ban??? I mean I feel especially appreciated when they actually ask in a comment thread, but I could totally deal with them having asked in an email.
    I tend to take the attitude that as long as comments are either on topic, or one can follow the evolution of the conversation into something else - let them run with it. Threatening comments and comments that consist of nothing more than overt bigotry and dehumanization are something I tend to only tolerate long enough to get a solid example to point to, then I start deleting...

  • Isabel says:

    WHAT is loony CPP? Concern that a financially comfortable PI can promote their blog right here on SB and increase traffic in ways a grad student blogger could not afford to, and that have nothing to do with superior content or the post's popularity? Why is asking for clarity on that, as a reader, in a thread about blog traffic, loony? Your criticism is so fucking boring. It's just flailing.
    Even after mostly ignoring the links until I got annoyed at seeing that sleazy post on "rednecks" constantly suggested to me when I am on other SB blogs, I initially just thought it was just a SB advertiser drumming up more traffic to popular posts but when I clicked on it it just seems to be a service where anyone can get a link promoted by paying a fee, and thereby increase traffic to their blog.
    Yes I know you and DM love Isis, she spends enough time kissing your asses and inflating your egos it's not surprising.

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    HA HA HA!!!! I love those boys too!!! Both of them!
    But, not BikeMonkey. That guy is an ass.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Not sure what you mean Isabel. I posted the code in, that's it.

  • Isabel says:

    I guess my question is, why do the sponsored links only appear on some sb blogs and only seem to feature posts from blogs that also show the links? For example I was just on a very active sb thread that is related to some other current threads, yet there were no links.
    And why links that are completely unrelated to the post I am reading often featured? After all there are plenty of 'top lists' amd 'most active' links to choose on sb, and other non-sb blogs seem to automatically generate relevant links without sponsors.
    CPP you are just rude. I am simply asking a question. I just fell off the turnip truck, so how the hell am I supposed to know how blog advertising works?

  • Isabel says:

    Yeah I get it. That will be your new name, Ice-Ass the Kiss-Ass.
    Oh well. I will always remember the words of one of my ex-bosses; he looked me straight in the eye and said "Isabel, one thing you will never be accused of is brownnosing."
    "There is a certain trust between blog host (whomever has access to the IP log) and reader/commenter when it comes to identity. This is reinforced when one shows that one has no inclination to out, even when one is really ticked off ... This is demolished when one yammers about how one detests pseuds and threatens that "somebody" is going to out them, etc. It is very hard to regain that trust."
    This HAS been noticed and appreciated, DM.
    Take note Isis.

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    HA HA HA HA.

  • I guess my question is, why do the sponsored links only appear on some sb blogs and only seem to feature posts from blogs that also show the links? For example I was just on a very active sb thread that is related to some other current threads, yet there were no links.
    And why links that are completely unrelated to the post I am reading often featured? After all there are plenty of 'top lists' amd 'most active' links to choose on sb, and other non-sb blogs seem to automatically generate relevant links without sponsors.

    LOON ALERT!@

  • DrugMonkey says:

    why do the sponsored links only appear on some sb blogs and only seem to feature posts from blogs that also show the links? For example I was just on a very active sb thread that is related to some other current threads, yet there were no links.
    Ah. This is a third party thing, many other bloggers have at various times tried similar ones. We tried out Adoptic at one point, for example, but ditched it because it slowed loads too often. I seem to recall the overlords bringing this one to our attention at one point. Some of us tried it out, many did not. It only pulls the related posts from the blogs (and external sites) that have this particular widget installed. So it may be that you are seeing related stuff on blogs that have not voluntarily decided to use this link exchanger.
    I know nothing about the algorithm it uses to decide related content, so I can't help with that part of the question.

  • DuWayne says:

    I totally failed to actually make the more important point I was going to. This is what happens when one has way to much in the way of homework.
    I have actually told people before that I blog for my friends - people who like me, have an interest in what I have to say and who don't mind the occasional use of profanity - sometimes rather heavy use. I think the obvious response to "why have a public blog then?" is that I want access to be simple. And sometimes people I don't know pop over to check it out. When I say that I am blogging for friends, I am ultimately saying that I could give a fuck how many people actually visit my blog - that I am not blogging for people who want me to write differently or stop writing about something or another that they object to.
    Honestly, the only time I wish more people read my blog, are occasions when I am trying to get responses to questions that I intend to use in a paper...Although I do wish I could get more people to post on my front page sometimes, I rather miss that.

  • Solomon Rivlin says:

    I believe that different bloggers blog for different reasons. For some, like DuWayne, it's blogging for his friends. For some it is for their own ego, an opportunity to speak-up and being heard. For others, it's narcISsISm. There are the boorish bloggers and there are the classy ones. Whatever is the reason one decides to blog, the blog is a reflection of the blogger's pesonality, beliefs, opinions and attitudes.
    My preference, to borrow an analogy from tennis, is the classy Roger Federer over the profane John McEnroe.

  • Solomon:
    "There are different types of blogging, and everyone blogs for different reasons. I blog for the sense of community, and for sheer fun. This kind of blogging has brought me more pleasure than I ever thought possible when I first started. That doesn't mean I have to like other kinds of blogging.
    (And I am fully aware of the difference between "I don't like X" and "X is intrinsically bad", having had many a discussion with my Dad about musical taste. Just so we're clear 😉 )
    Quote by, ahem, me. June 23 2009 🙂

  • Solomon Rivlin says:

    Cath@VWXYNot?,
    I should pay more attention to comments on long threads. They are so easy to miss. What is yours and your dad's musical taste? Mine, after some years of exploration, coincides with my dad's 😉

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Boy you sure spend a lot of time here and at Isis' place Sol. Given your alleged preference.

  • Solomon Rivlin says:

    DM,
    I'm sorry you haven't recognized the Federer compliment I gave you. I'm sure you know that your partner is the john McEnroe of the bloggosphere, but luckily, he has his own backyard to shit all over, which I do not visit, and most of the time the blogging here is done by you. I do visit Isis blog on those occasions when she whines about women inequality in academia, while filling her mouth with water about women inequality in her church. Sometimes one has to visit the gutter just to clear the crap that blocks the drainage.

  • Sometimes one has to visit the gutter just to clear the crap that blocks the drainage.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!! You really do see yourself as some kind of hero, protecting all that is lightness and good in science from the darkness and evil represented by Comrade PhysioProf, don't you?

  • Solomon Rivlin says:

    No, CPP! Don't compliment yourself. Your crap is beyond cleaning. I was talking about Isis's crap (hypocisy).

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    Is that Dr. J thing what you are all still all wound up about, Cath?

  • That was an on-topic reply to Solomon. I have a good memory for things I've written before, enhanced when the thread gets personal. I was really, truly, just being lazy and copying-pasting from a previous identical comment that I remembered writing, rather than taking the time to type, review, proofread, re-review, and submit all over again.
    If I am wound up, it's partially because of the pattern of which the Dr J episode formed one example. But mostly I'd been rather enjoying this whole latest episode (hence my stirring on NN and Twitter, and watercress-related silliness on Twitter. My comment that you highlighted with a big red arrow yesterday was (almost completely) a joke), until this morning. I'd already mostly disengaged due to feedback on Twitter that others are getting heartily sick of the whole episode, and after subsequent information about serious real-life consequences of this whole flame war, am completely disengaging as of now, except to answer any direct questions / comments aimed at me.

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    Yeah, it's that almost part that seems to be the key cause that almost tells me it really wasn't any kind of joke. And, it opened the door for Henry to move his tirades there. Again, I say it's a darn shame you all didn't just enjoy the accomplishment instead of taking the opportunity to snark.

  • First - let's see - 16 comments were about enjoying the accomplishment. First snark introduced by a non-NN blogger (although intermittent commenter) about 22 hours in.

  • Sorry, messed up the link.
    I am not responsible for Henry's actions.

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    You're right. You're responsible for your own.

  • PalMD says:

    Hmm...i can no longer follow the links to NN. Asks me to log in.

  • Isabel says:

    "It only pulls the related posts from the blogs (and external sites) that have this particular widget installed. "
    Okay, your posts are promoted in exchange for having others' links on your blog, and you just opt-in or out, but there is no payment by you and you don't select the posts? So why would some people pay- if they don't have blogs or web sites to put the widget on what are they promoting? I can see that you are also promoting the sponsor's other $10 service, but I just can't see that it would be viable. The impression I got when I clicked on the sponsor's link was that people are paying to promote particular posts. (It would be more useful to have automatically generated sb posts).
    "I know nothing about the algorithm it uses"
    Yeah I can't imagine what algorithm would return such irrelevant posts, most written by your girlfriend Isis.:)

  • Isabel says:

    "In the context of our session, I offered these comments from the ScienceBlogs website to illustrate an example of what, for me, constitutes uncivil behavior."
    WTF Isis? SZ jumped in on a thread that I was a sincere participant of (one of the redneck posts over at DM's)in fact the writer of the post was asking me direct questions at the time that I was trying to answer, and she called me a troll without even reading the thread. She also characterized my participation on the DM cannabis threads as trolling and other totally obnoxious crap. But you take my response out of context when SHE was the uncivil one.
    Suddenly bad language is the problem?
    I'm posting over here DM because Isis deletes my posts because I don't kiss up to her. That's why DM and PP are cool, and their sites are fun Isis. YOU are uncool.
    You will always be petty and untrustworthy, I will try to stop reading your posts and comments.

  • Iabel says:

    My mind is kind of blown right now. I've been idly catching up with some of that conference shenanigans crap about incivility, all the while not realizing that my own words were taken out of context and used by one of the moderators as an example (a false one as I've just pointed out) of incivility. This is bogus man! WTF??
    This is one more example of dishonesty and sneakiness by Kiss Ass, because she never commented on my words at the time.

  • Isabel says:

    Sorry I meant Isabel:)

  • Dr Isis:
    1) my general apology on Twitter was a direct response to hearing about real-life consequences of all this. Job-related ones. You know what I'm talking about. It was not in response to seeing your post, which in fact was the subject of some of my stirring (and which someone posted on my Facebook profile for further LOLs). i.e. it was not an "I'm sorry I was caught", as you insinuated on Twitter. I know there's no way I can prove this, but it's true.
    2) I admitted that you had a point that the "almost" part meant that there was a hard edge to my joke.
    3) You admitted that my sniping consisted of pointing out your history of doing something that you happily admit to doing, and direct quotes of what you'd written.
    4) So... I'm having a hard time understanding why this seems to have upset you so much?
    Pal, that's weird because you don't need to be logged in to read blogs and comments. I'll ask the NN managers if they know why this is happening.

  • Solomon Rivlin says:

    Isabel,
    And I thought I'm the only one whose comments are deleted by Isis for not kissing ass.
    BTW, I do get, at times, a similar treatment here by PP when I raise the civility issue.

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    HA HA HA...."because I never commented on your words at the time." If I spent my life commenting on every bat shit crazy thing you said, I'd never get anything done. You said it. Plain and simple. I used it as an example of what consitutes incivility on my blog. That's not dishonest. Those are basically the same words that got you banned from my place.

  • Isabel says:

    "used it as an example of what consitutes incivility on my blog. That's not dishonest. Those are basically the same words that got you banned from my place."
    What words??? WTF are you talking about? Are you crazy? And nobody posted it on your blog. Unless you count *CPP* posting it on the "your" other blog...
    Banned? This is the first I've heard. You just pulled any comment that was critical and didn't suck up to you so I stopped posting. You solicit comments for weeks before the conference from your "little muffins" and all you end up doing is twisting my words and using them out of context? You are a real creep Isis.
    And yet you encourage the use of "cuntalina" on "your" other blog. The one where you also mock low income children, like you did here as well. You're a real piece of work Is-Ass.
    You lied and said I called you a bad word when posting at your site. It was a complete lie. A petty lie, and after you revealed my location without my permission. I posted the actual comment on CPPs site. I challenged you to come up with anything of the kind. You cannot because such a thing does not exist.

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    Cath, I know what consequences you think you're talking about, but I am going to leave things I have been told in confidence there. In confidence. At this point I am having a hard time figuring out what the balls you're getting at anymore. You say that it was a joke. Then you say there was a hard edge. Then you say it's not a joke, but a criticism of something I say I do and you've posted it on your Facebook for the LOLZ. At this point it sounds largely to me like a bunch of petty sniping and I'd argue that you maybe need to find more important things to do with your time than snark about how I am breaking the interwebz. You give yourself a lot of credit to think that you, in anyway, have upset me. I merely fail to see the point of what you wrote, where you wrote it, when you wrote it except to reinforce the notion that NN is an insular chat room where there same 10 people comment on each others posts and throw down pictures of their cats.

  • I was merely explaining the nature of the hard edge of what was mostly a joke. And it wasn't me that put your blog post (specifically the image with the big arrow pointing at my comment) on my Facebook profile for the LOLs, it was a third party who knew I'd find it amusing. I was trying to use that as an illustration of why my apology was not an "I'm sorry I was caught".
    If you're not upset then why are we still arguing?!

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    I'm not aruging. I am simply repeating, far too many times by now, that I fail to see why you took a discussion that was being had about something DrugMonkey wrote, refocused it, and snarked about me.
    "I’ll start printing the “Team Steffi” t-shirts?"
    I have no knowledge of who this Steffi person even is, other than to know now that she apparently speaks German.

  • Isabel says:

    Hey CPP! (btw the person parked next to me at the coffee shop just now had the license 5CPP555. An omen? All the 5's made it look fake) Anyway Ice Ass the Kiss Ass here thinks your posts epitomize incivility! Were you aware of this? Your own gf holding you up as a bad example for posting that shit on "her" blog! She pretended to laugh and then used it as the perfect example of incivility on her slides!
    Well I hope some of the NN bloggers are still reading. I'm just sorry they got stuck involved with the most uncivil and unethical person I have come across on the internet. How she ended up on an uncivility panel is simply a testament to her shameless ass-kissing.
    As far as I can see she used my example because of the "b-word" leaving out the outrageous behavior of the person I was addressing. Actually that was originally posted here, not on her blog, and DM blocked out the b-word. Her boyfriend CPP then reposted it on a blog he and Isis own together, because he loves that shit and he revealed what the censored words were. So Isis is really complaining about her own co-blogger, on a non-SB blog that encourages even worse terms (much worse) for women.
    http://getyourownmotherfuckingblogasshole.wordpress.com/about/

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    HA HA HA. "Our" blog. Isabel, you should give up science and write fiction. You're hilarious.

  • Isabel says:

    WTF does that comment even mean? That you're flailing like CPP again? WHAT is fiction? You and PP are like spoiled children saying "you're lying!" or "you're crazy" when someone calls you on something. YOU should give up science because you have no sense of ethics or morals.
    Really Isis? All those heartfelt comments from people and that was what you came up with for the conference?

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Okay, your posts are promoted in exchange for having others' links on your blog, and you just opt-in or out, but there is no payment by you and you don't select the posts? So why would some people pay- if they don't have blogs or web sites to put the widget on what are they promoting? I can see that you are also promoting the sponsor's other $10 service, but I just can't see that it would be viable. The impression I got when I clicked on the sponsor's link was that people are paying to promote particular posts. (It would be more useful to have automatically generated sb posts).
    Isabel, I hate to belabor the obvious but you do understand this is an ad-payed business model here, right? People pay SMG to put ads up in the topbar and sidebar. Obviously they think paying for this privilege has some value. Is this unclear to you?
    My interest in outbrain is indeed that it gives my readers posts related to my stuff including my own older posts, stuff from other Sb-ers and maybe eventually some other independents in the sciency-blogging sphere. the cost is occasionally seeing links from random humor sites and some Chicago newspaper. The links I get seem to strike an acceptable balance so I like the outbrain widget.
    "I know nothing about the algorithm it uses"
    Yeah I can't imagine what algorithm would return such irrelevant posts, most written by your girlfriend Isis.:)

    From what I get as outbrain suggestions, and knowing some of the Sb blogs that use the outbrain, I can only conclude that your personal reading habits over here tend to include Isis' blog with great frequency. Whyncha stop reading for awhile, replace it with AiE&S or ABAC or even p3.14 and see if your suggested links change...

  • Isabel says:

    DM, yes not to belabor the point, this definitely is getting tedious, but my history and cookies are deleted every browser session. Even if I logged first on to your blog to read the cannabis post, or onto Janet's blog as my first SB blog, it would recommend as first choice "you might be a redneck...by Isis" every time for weeks. It has nothing to do with my reading habits, I don't read her often. Of course I find the civility discussions interesting and she was a part of that, before and after. And interesting surprises when I do read her like just now seeing this other shit.
    "People pay SMG to put ads up in the topbar and sidebar. "
    what does that have to do with anything? Never mind.

  • DrugMonkey says:

    Ok, ok, you got us Isabel. Isis and I use our NSA contacts to track you and deliver up the redneck posts every time you visit Sb.

  • THE BLOG POSTS ARE COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!!!!!

  • Solomon Rivlin says:

    When the hell you people have any time left to do science? I begin to believe that all this PI stuff that PP and Isis blog about is just a phantom or, if it is not, then they sure need all the postdocs they can get to do their NIH grant work. Otherwise, how could they manage and post on, each, two blogs, commenting on others' blogs, having online conferences, raising babies, shopping for shoes weekly, etc, etc. No wonder they denigrate the science of yesterday, while promoting their own; after all, it is all about the appearance and the bloggosphere is the best place to BS about it.

  • Isabel says:

    Okay I just checked my preferences and it looks like the defaults had been reset for some reason so you guys may be right on this one. I have the private browsing on always lately. And though I don't read Isis usually, I have been following much of the civility debate recently, so that would explain why it was picking up her blog - what seemed weird was that it was only hers, when I read other sb bloggers much more frequently and very differently themed blogs elsewhere. But I guess your widget is only used by a handful of sb bloggers and those are prioritized. The other links seem either random and silly as you note or maybe one related one of yours sometimes. It just seemed really odd - partly because I didn't realize my cookies were being saved for 2 days. And I didn't read any redneck posts of any type for weeks so it must be because it is her top post - which still is a little non-sensical. It seems like the content of your post should be prioritized by the algorithm.
    Oh well sorry! It was just bugging me to keep seeing that one post that had so vexed and offended me:) being recommended to me almost daily weeks later, so it stills seems a poor algorithm, but possibly suiting some needs I suppose! I never even paid attention to it until that one post kept popping up. I assume it willed be fixed now since I reset my browser. I will go back to ignoring it, as it is not very useful anyway, and all other things Isis.

  • Isis the Scientist says:

    I work nights and don't sleep. Can't speak for anyone else.

Leave a Reply