I’m number 377! I’m number 377!

By Phil Plait | August 1, 2007 12:00 pm

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.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: About this blog, Humor, Science

Comments (22)

  1. Tim G

    It says you’re #348. Did you move up that quickly?

  2. Yeah, I got #348 for you as well.

    Heck, the Planetary Society is #378, and Universe Today didn’t make the cut either.

  3. carn

    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.

  4. Dan

    As I told PZ, it’s all about the size of your scope. He uses a microscope, and you use a big, naughty telescope.

  5. Arnaud

    Altogether now: “I am not a number, I am a free man!”

  6. Arnaud

    All together now: “I am not an number, I am a free man!”

  7. Sizer

    Ha ha! OUCH! for biology!

  8. 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?

  9. Sergeant Zim

    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:

    http://www.quackwatch.org Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions [58900]

    Oddly appropriate, don’t you think?

  10. 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!

  11. A reader

    If Pharyngula and all the other scienceblogs collectively don’t compare to Bad Astronomy, well,

    that’s just sad, isn’t it? ūüėÄ

  12. Davidlpf

    Well your #1 to DrBuzz0.

  13. mena

    Uh oh, there isn’t going to be a contest involving nudity again, is there?

  14. PuckishOne

    Someone say nudity?

  15. Darth Robo

    I hope not! Tentacles are gross!

  16. Quiet Desperation

    The impedence of free space is 377 ohms.

    I’m just sayin’…

  17. Tom

    Yeah, whatever. That’s just a dumb list. All of us on Phil’s daily blog email know that he is #1!

  18. Paracelsus

    Biology does not ‘drool’. FIVE of the top 20 websites are exclusively devoted to biology:

    10. http://www.epa.gov 1570000
    14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 1450000
    16. http://www.cdc.gov 1430000
    18. http://www.genome.ad.jp 1410000
    20. http://www.biomedcentral.com


  19. KaiYeves

    What the heck- National Geographic at only 88! Cheer up, you’re near NOAA, SETI and AMNH.

  20. viccro

    Wow…in the time that it took for me to get to this article, you rose up to number 328. Nice!

  21. swoopy

    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 √Ę‚ā¨ňúback link√Ę‚ā¨‚ĄĘ 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.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


See More

Collapse bottom bar