New: Field of Science Science Blog Network
Edward Michaud
Monday, 09 March 2009 02:51 UTC
I’m starting a science blog network/magazine at Field of Science
If you are a science blogger (or are thinking of starting a science blog) and you’re interested in getting in on the ground floor, see this FAQ for more details.
I’m happy to answer questions here as well.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
“A million? I’ve never even heard of “ScientificBlogging”. Got a URL?”
If you can’t figure it out, I don’t think you are the target market.
-
“If you can’t figure it out, I don’t think you are the target market.”
Excellent marketing strategy, holmes!
-
Bora: I’m not privy to your agreement with ScienceBlogs, and if I’ve mischaracterized it in any way I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I believe the analogy (cubicle vs. booth) is a good one. Can you, for example, export your posts from your ScienceBlog blog to your own domain? Can you run your own advertising on your ScienceBlog? Add a calendar, or label cloud, or exclude Seed’s advertising, etc.? I’m not saying ScienceBlogs isn’t a good deal. I’m sure for some it’s a perfect fit for some bloggers. Just as I hope Field of Science will be.
Hank: I believe you can apply to blog at Nature (Want a blog?). But the arrangement appears to be similar to that of ScienceBlogs. Suffice it to say, the bar for blogging at Field of Science is a bit lower at this point. I thought ScienceBlogs used MT. Same difference. To be honest I hadn’t heard of Scientificblogging until you responded to this thread and I followed your profile. I’m sure your platform is appealing to a subset of writers as well, but it’s more like an online magazine than a blog network. Field of Science is powered by Blogger which is owned by Google.
John: I’m not saying I don’t like ScienceBlogs. I do. In fact, I’ve admired them for many years (In a former life I went by the name Ender). I’m just trying to improve on their model, and I tend to make the comparison because SB is familiar, even the gold standard. It simply makes explaining what I’m trying to do easier, “Like ScienceBlogs, but also different…”
Henry: I think the benefits of being part of a network as somewhat self-evident as far as increasing traffic and profile. Aside from that, I’m pretty good at web design so can assist you in customizing your blog. It’s a bit like having a little gnome doing all the grunt work (although I actually enjoy the work) leaving the blogger with more time for blogging, and expanding the tools available to them at the same time.
Nature: Hank is right that you’re being very gracious in allowing this thread. Thanks.
All: Thanks for all your comments.
-
My blog PLEKTIX joined Field of Science a few weeks ago. I believe I’m the first person who was not personally acquainted with Edward to join the network.
The major advantage for me was that all of my posts, comments, and permalinks followed me into Field of Science. There was no interruption or starting over. Of course, this was easy in my case because my original blog was on blogspot, and (as has been pointed out) Field of Science basically overlays blogspot. Edward says it may also be possible to import posts made using WordPress and other software.
Edward also helped out a lot with aesthetics and technical issues.
I have friends that write for ScienceBlogs, and I have absolutely nothing against them. It’s true one can probably make more money there, but I don’t write often enough to make money anyway. The advantage of having all my old content follow me outweighed the other advantages ScienceBlogs would offer.
-
I’m not saying ScienceBlogs isn’t a good deal. I’m sure for some it’s a perfect fit for some bloggers
It isn’t even an option, much less a good deal, for most science bloggers. Therefore, Edward, I think your initiative with Field of Science is admirable, and I hope it succeeds.
But the arrangement appears to be similar to that of ScienceBlogs
How so? We don’t get paid, for one thing, and none of us (I think) had that expectation. This particular difference between SB and NN has been pointed out before (I think by Bob O’Hara).
-
“But the arrangement appears to be similar to that of ScienceBlogs”
“How so? We don’t get paid, for one thing, and none of us (I think) had that expectation. This particular difference between SB and NN has been pointed out before (I think by Bob O’Hara).”Well, I clicked on the NN’s “Want a blog?” button out of curiosity and saw right away that not just anyone gets an NN blog, and NN blogs all look more or less the same. In both these respects, I’m reminded of ScienceBlogs. That’s all I meant.
-
If people were most worried about having cosmetic control, they would stay on blogspot. We have plenty of people who put their articles with us and have personal blogspot things too, because they like putting their more personal bloggy stuff on a personal site – as you noted, we are more of a feature article site than a blog site, despite our name. Note: don’t let writers vote on your name! ha ha
Writers sign up with Nature if they want the Nature name (and it is a name with a century of good will, so they can make people work for free) and Scienceblogs invites people if they first get popular enough to hold their own without just diluting the audience they already have.
Those models obviously work, just like they do for us or Discover or AAAS. To be successful, you have to show how your product is different from everything else. In reading the comments on your FAQ, you didn’t even know there was more than Scienceblogs in existence, whereas millions of other readers and who knows how many writers do. So in that sense this has been educational for you, right?
-
Well Hank, let me begin by saying that every day is an education for me. As for the educational benefits of this particular thread, I freely admitted (along with a few others) that I knew nothing of your site. That, along with a number of other insights I gained from the responses so far, is one of the reasons for initiating this discussion in the first place. So sure, I’m more than happy to admit that I’ve gotten quite a bit out of this thread and hope to get even more.
That said, for some reason you seem particularly bent on criticizing my efforts here. Maybe you see FOS as competition you can’t afford(*). Or perhaps you wish you’d thought of it first. Whatever your reasons, I’m confident I’ve substantively outlined what makes FOS a unique alternative for science bloggers, and you’ve more than demonstrated your willingness to ignore those points or downplay them. If I’m making an error, it’s in being an open book. But I happen to believe in what I’m doing, and in my ability to do it better, so perhaps you should consider that your audience is not nearly as dense as your explications would suggest.
(*)While I view what you’re doing at scientificblogging (aggregating blogger’s content and republishing it on your site), as fundamentally different from what I’m doing at Field of Science (upgrading the appearance and functionality of science blogger’s blogs and incorporating them into a professional network), I think you’re probably right to be worried.
Results
-
