The other day I mentioned that 3 Quarks Daily is running a contest for the best science blog entry of the past year. I just found out that voting is now open, and there are a LOT of great articles there (here’s a clickable list). I read quite a few when they came out, unsurprisingly; I subscribe to a lot of blogs to try to stay up to speed with science news. What was surprising to me was that there are quite a few blogs I had never even heard of. I don’t have time to keep up anymore, I suppose.
Hey! I think maybe that’s a good thing. When there are too many science blogs to read, then that means more science is getting out there. I know it’s not that simple, but still. Cool.
If you’ve got the time (and it’ll take some) then go through some of those posts listed at 3QD and see what you like. There are a whole bunch in there I need to read, too. Voting ends June 8th.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
OT, for those who are interested about the Recent Comments section, I received the following from Amos Zeeberg of Discover Magazine:
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Hey! I’m currently ahead of Phil! That’ll last about 2 more minutes…
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I had to go with the Science IS imagination post. That one connected with me on a basic level. The others were either just cool (wobbly) or depressing (McCarthy).
Would figure, the Science Babe is running away with it right now.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Darn it Phil! 171 articles and a whole host of new science websites for me to read! Ugh, the time. I needs more of it.
10 Things about Hubble just got my vote.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
hey, did anyone see this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1189996/Twitter-test-psychic-powers-scientific-study.html
just wondering if that psychologist is a real live bona fide scientist or not.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
The McCarthy one got my vote as it a subject matter that needs a lot of attention. I personally feel the other options, as important as they are, need less attention at this point in time. Where McCarthy et al and those unfortunate enough to buy into her product, are causing serious harm.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
garth, try looking up his name in google.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wiseman
http://www.richardwiseman.com/
neat.
I am acutally aware that GFE, but i often turn to experts. this one didn’t seem to need expert assistance.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Wow, that is indeed a daunting list. You’re right. I personally think that one may have to put aside the whole weekend in order to go through all the articles. And not just the existing list, it seems there are going to be some wildcard entries as well (as mentioned by Abbas Raza).
I see four BA articles included in the list. The tiny wobble revealing a planet is my favorite. I think in the end the winning entries may also serve as barometer for which is/are the more popular science topic(s) amongst the general public. Hope you snag the first price, Phil.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Ooh, Phil, there’s a distinct lack of Pharyngula posts there! Verrrrrry interesting!
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
As The Astronomy Bum hath stated, Pharyngula is missing from 3QD’s list. Errrmm, WTF‽
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
Why would there be articles from PZ there? He doesn’t write about science 95% of the time. He isn’t on that list because obviously he shouldn’t be.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
@ Cheyenne,
As a regular reader of Pharyngula, I totally disagree with you on that; and it is similar to the rather flimsy complaints people hurl at Phil. While it’s PZ’s blog, meaning he can blog about whatever the hell he wants, he does write quite a few (excellent) science posts. Sure, he often has fun with online polls and such, but even those posts come with the important message that such methods of gathering data are completely useless (hence their inevitable crash). But he reserves the right to write about whatever, since it is, y’know, his blog.
Much like Bad Astronomy, many Pharyngula posts aren’t specifically on a particular area of science, but instead are meant to combat pseudoscience and other irrational nonsense (yes, that includes religion) — but those posts have become an absolute necessity these days. I applaud any science blogger who isn’t afraid to tell purveyors of pseudoscience where (and why) to shove it.
BTW, here’s an excellent recent post from PZ — one that delivers science whilst handing creationists their asses:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/embryonic_similarities_in_the.php
June 4th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Well. Reading 171 science posts was quite a mental marathon! (Alright … 171 introductory paragraphs and a smaller number of whole articles.)
What I’m genuinely baffled by is how it can be that I was the first person to post a comment on the clickable list. I’m not the sort of person who takes a twisted pride in that; I see it more as evidence that the universe has gone wrong, that I’m inside some sort of computer simulation and have found a bug. It simply cannot be (given the lengths of time involved, the amount of publicity given to the competition, and the explicit request for any errors to be pointed out) that no-one posted a comment before I did. And yet…
As a matter of principle I’ve resolved not to vote for any article that I’ve read before. Sorry, Phil, but this means that articles from blogs I read regularly are automatically disqualified as far as my personal vote is concerned. By insisting on voting for an article that I wouldn’t have read were it not on the list of nominations, I guarantee that I will have no part in any sort of popularity contest, not even subconsiously. This, I’ve concluded, is the honorable thing to do.
At this point, I’ve narrowed down my vote to two grand finalists. I might vote for #34 (Jennifer Ouellette’s essay on triboluminescence) or I might vote for #103 (Blake Stacey’s essay on the importance of mathematics). If anyone wishes to influence me before I make my final decision, you can reply to me on Twitter where you’ll find me @GoldHoarder.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:24 am
@bonez-
Yeah, thanks, I do understand that it’s his blog and “he can blog about whatever the hell he wants”. I think you read way too much into my 2 sentence post. It’s just very simple – the 3 Quarks Daily poll is about high quality science posts. PZ doesn’t have any articles on that list because he doesn’t blog about science very much (or he doesn’t do it very well when he occasionally does it apparently).
Don’t get mad at me. I didn’t make the list.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:55 am
@ Cheyenne,
Oh, I wasn’t mad at you; I was just calling you out on something so blatantly incorrect. Like I said, what you wrote is not unlike the flak Phil receives about his blog when he’s not posting specifically on “science” full-time. It’s a demonstrably weak claim.
Tell me what wasn’t “high quality” about the link I provided. I can provide many more from the last year (as that appears to what the contest is open) if you think one is all I can find. FWIW, from your 4th sentence (and its parenthetical companion), methinks you’re not a regular reader of Pharyngula.
Oh, and BTW, you originally wrote 3 sentences, since a question is still a sentence. ; ]
June 4th, 2009 at 10:23 am
@bonez- I don’t really get how you are “calling me out” on something. It ain’t my list bro. I have nothing to do with it. I just very casually made the rather obvious statement that the 3 Quarks Daily poll is about the best science blogs and that is probably the reason that PZ doesn’t have any on there. I’m not making any “claims” about anything or criticizing anything. Just pointing out an obvious fact (or if it’s not obvious why is PZ not in the running at this point?).
OK you got me I’m not a daily reader of Pharyngula. So I just went over there for a look see and these are what his posts are about on his first page-
1- A t-shirt he likes
2- Another online poll regarding evolution
3- Who should win the Molly award
4- A cartoon he found funny
5- Post about the Singh controversy
6- “Bérubéan snark” post regarding the Supreme court nomination
7- Gay marriage
8- Anti-PETA rant
9- John Wilkins blog
Not a whole lot of science there. That’s probably why the list doesn’t include him right now.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:31 am
@ Cheyenne,
I’m going to assume you’re someone who is interesting in science and is a reader of science blogs (b/c you are here, of course; but correct me if I’m wrong). So, with that said, you should know better than to make a blanket statement about something with such a sample (and sample size) as you’ve given. To get a realistic representation of Pharyngula, try the following (in the “By Category” section):
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/archives.php
Commenters have presented such a list for the very blog on which we’re commenting, and you know as well as any reader here that that’s not only bunk, but a bad way to analyze a blog. 3QD has the right to put any posts they choose in their list, but they’ve left out some good science blogging, without a doubt.
And I was “calling you out” b/c, as his archive shows, you’re analysis of Pharyngula doesn’t hold up. Feel free to tell me what’s wrong (or non-scientific) with the link I provided yesterday. Like I said, I can provide many more.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Hi Phil, 再接再厲 (to continue in perseverance). Your articles were very good, though.
June 13th, 2009 at 3:30 am
Bonez and Cheyenne,
I just saw these comments and wanted to clarify that there is no anti-PZ bias among the editors of 3QD. We didn’t nominate ANY of the posts on the list of nominees; readers did that, and it just so happens that no one nominated Pharyngula. I personally sent PZ an email inviting him to enter, and also sent him a message on Facebook, but he chose not to enter himself or even post an announcement about the prize so that one of his readers might have nominated him. And I agree that he occasionally has very good science posts.
In any case, though Phil didn’t make it into the finalists by voting, the editors of 3QD did include his post about Hubble in the finalists as the one “wildcard” entry. Now it’s all in Steven Pinker’s hands… Best of luck, Phil!
June 14th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Thanks for the info, Abbas. That was probably best for the lesser-known science blogs to get some exposure, as I’m thinking any Pharyngula posts nominated would’ve dominated if the Pharyngulites had a contender on the ballot.