Three anniversaries and an open thread

By Ed Yong | August 13, 2010 9:00 am

CelebrateI love anniversaries, and particularly when they coincide with one another. Today, I have three four causes for celebration:

  • Eagle-eyed readers may have noticed that Sunday’s post on the microbiome was my 800th piece for Not Exactly Rocket Science (including all full-length posts, Pocket Science write-ups and opinion pieces, and excluding re-posts and the photo safaris).
  • Today is my fourth bloggiversary – NERS was born in August 13th 2006
  • Sometime in the last week, I got my 3 millionth page view (including those from the WordPress and Scienceblogs incarnations).
  • [Updated] And apparently, I’ve written 10,000 tweets! Thanks to Chris Rowan for the tip.

Woo, and I might add, hoo.

So in a tradition I started when I wrote my 600th post, this is an open thread. Feel free to ask/talk about anything you want. I’ll do my best to reply, time pending.

Cheers, and thanks for reading,


(function() {
var s = document.createElement(‘SCRIPT’), s1 = document.getElementsByTagName(‘SCRIPT’)[0];
s.type = ‘text/javascript’;
s.async = true;
s.src = ‘’;
s1.parentNode.insertBefore(s, s1);


Comments (17)

  1. Congratulations Ed! Keep on keepin’ on.

  2. I never got answer from sb, so I pose it here again: is meteoropathy scientific phenomenon or pure hypochondriacal fiction?

    Or was it supposed to be other type of questions?

    P.S. And well done!

  3. Congrats Ed, and happy fourth birthday to the blog! Truly awesome.

    Truth: I started reading your stuff shortly before you moved from ScienceBlogs to Discover (hey, I’m not all-seeing and omniscient). More truth: Your writing is kick-ass, and I’m personally looking forward to the next 4 years :)

  4. YAY!!!! Congratulations! Every bit of it is very well deserved. You’re the best!

  5. Peter Demain

    If you were a journalist like me you’d lie and make the post relevant to the fireworks image by appending a fifth occasion: “This is the 2000th anniversary of the first recorded use of fireworks in China.” – and then a short pontificate about gunpowder technology etc.

    As many in our trade would candidly opine…‘truth and facts are of relative – not absolute – importance to a story.’

    I like this blog though…good layout and the idiosyncracies present appeal to my brain, kind of like CmdrTaco’s better posts on Slashdot.

  6. Hmmm. How to take advantage of an open thread. Perhaps to suggest a nice meme that readers might like to partake in?

    In my opinion, any blogger qualified to call themselves a geek (and in possession of a camera) should follow Stan Carey, myself, and a few other people in posting some book title mashups. I’d really like to see this break into the science blogosphere, because science bloggers (being geeks almost by definition) are particularly likely to own the requisite variety of books. The best results come from combining everything from light fiction all the way to scary technical textbooky stuff.

  7. Yay Ed! NERS is one of my very favorites šŸ˜‰

  8. @Rafal – How about we restrict it to questions that you can’t answer using Google? šŸ˜‰

    @Adrian – that’s genius. I have tweeted it.

  9. Well done and keep it up Ed! NERS is my favourite science blog by far, partly due to our shared interests and because you write beautifully. Congratulations!

  10. Congratulations!

    And yes, #blogmash rocks! Tweeted some ideas, need to take pictures of them tomorrow….

  11. zackoz

    Congrats on reaching all these landmarks. More to come ! Your readers are insatiable.

    I started reading your blog after the Darwinius kerfuffle – your comment then was brilliant and hilarious.

    Maybe I have overlooked something, but I don’t recall a comment by you about the Flores hobbit. You probably made plenty, but before I started reading.

    Did you reach a conclusion about that? – or can you direct me to any ‘blog entries you did make on it.

  12. @Zackoz – Actually I’ve never written about the hobbits before. There are two reasons for this. The first is that, perhaps surprisingly, I’m not actually all that interested. For the same reason, I didn’t write about Ardi or X-Woman. There’s a bizarre black hole of excitement for me in this area, and I can’t really explain it. The second reason is that other people do it much better. Carl Zimmer has written extensively about the hobbit. Kate Wong at Scientific American does a fantastic job with human evolution stories. John Hawks will almost certainly blog about any new discovery. There’s a nice new media maxim which goes “Do what you do best; link to the rest”. I think it’s pertinent here.

  13. Oh, com’on, if you exclude googleable question (and I insist that this one is not. Well, not exactly anyway), then what will be left?

  14. Congrats! 3 million hits – wow!

    I have three questions. “What is your name?”, “What is your quest?” and “What is your favorite colour?”

  15. I have a question: how do you pronounce the Y of scientific names in Latin? Is it always as in “why” or always as in “you”? Or it depends?
    For example, how do you pronounce the Y of phylum? And the Ys in Bryophyta? According to it’s “why”, “why”, “you” sounds respectively, but on a document I found on the internet (by a certain Michael A. Covington) it says that the y should be pronounced either as the i in “pit” or the i in “machine”. What is the spelling norm in Cambridge or whatever scientific community you are familiar with?
    That’s not a google question, you had better answer me šŸ˜€


Discover's Newsletter

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

Not Exactly Rocket Science

Dive into the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science news with award-winning writer Ed Yong. No previous experience required.

See More

Collapse bottom bar