Actually, this is an outrage.
That site has a list of the Top 100 (and beyond) science sites, rated by incoming links. I’m 377? Evidently I’m not whoring promoting myself enough.
But it could be worse:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Astronomy rulez, biology droolz.
I was thinking of not posting this, but then PZ went and outed me. Serves him right.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. | |
 | Open Lab 2008 is a collection of the best blog posts of the year, all in one place. Are you a science junkie? Yeah, you want it. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
August 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
It says you’re #348. Did you move up that quickly?
August 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Yeah, I got #348 for you as well.
Heck, the Planetary Society is #378, and Universe Today didn’t make the cut either.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Ha! Pwnt.
It may have something to do with scienceblogs being counted as a whole, though. Then again, they seem to be at #1070. Something’s fishy.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
As I told PZ, it’s all about the size of your scope. He uses a microscope, and you use a big, naughty telescope.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Altogether now: “I am not a number, I am a free man!”
August 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pm
All together now: “I am not an number, I am a free man!”
August 1st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Ha ha! OUCH! for biology!
August 1st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
That is a fascinating list. What I want to know is, why is the Australian Bureau of Meteorology at 11th place? Also, I think if you combined all the NASA sites, they’d come out top.
Finally, when am I going to find time to read them all?
August 1st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I also notice that searching for Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, Michael Behe, Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design produce no relevant results (Although one of the results I saw when searching for Intelligent Design was:
www.quackwatch.org Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions [58900]
Oddly appropriate, don’t you think?
August 1st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
377? No!
348. www.badastronomy.com
August 1st, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Ha. It’s because they only accept domains. Scienceblogs.com is on the list, at about 1070, but that’s just our index page. You only beat me by an unfair quirk of their site!
August 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
If Pharyngula and all the other scienceblogs collectively don’t compare to Bad Astronomy, well,
…
that’s just sad, isn’t it?
August 1st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Well your #1 to DrBuzz0.
August 1st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Uh oh, there isn’t going to be a contest involving nudity again, is there?
August 1st, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Someone say nudity?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 am
I hope not! Tentacles are gross!
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:47 am
The impedence of free space is 377 ohms.
I’m just sayin’…
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 am
Yeah, whatever. That’s just a dumb list. All of us on Phil’s daily blog email know that he is #1!
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Biology does not ‘drool’. FIVE of the top 20 websites are exclusively devoted to biology:
10. www.epa.gov 1570000
14. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 1450000
16. www.cdc.gov 1430000
18. www.genome.ad.jp 1410000
20. www.biomedcentral.com
HA!
August 5th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
What the heck- National Geographic at only 88! Cheer up, you’re near NOAA, SETI and AMNH.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Wow…in the time that it took for me to get to this article, you rose up to number 328. Nice!
August 12th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Well..you do have to put the logo for the Top 100 Science list domain on your front page in order to be considered for this list.
“Your site will be declined by our moderator if the ‘back link’ is hidden from visitors or search engines. Please keep the link to us on your site otherwise your site won’t be approved or can be removed.”
It’s sort of like being Who’s Who Among (insert social group here). So, I’m kind of skeptical about it.
Besides Phil, you’ll always be Number 1 with us.