Places like reddit and Digg are places where it’s common for commenters to use “evolutionary psychology” to claim something sexist about the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields, so the fact that your duck sex post was popular on these sites really doesn’t mean you introduced science interest to people who were initially uninterested in science.

Like you I really got @Steve’s comments about “popularity and credibility.” Very spot on.

@Jay’s comments about niche publishing, I’ve made about niche consuming: only so much time to go around, so we’re beyond push and broadcast and to audiences selectively doing their own programming via their own specific needs and interests. So if we isolate ourselves in our own walls, we’re to blame. When they catch my eye – trick- I try to read things outside my field, expand my horizons. You hooked me in with your “sex sells” story and made it applicable to my interests.

@Emily balance in all things, educating, writing (for ourselves, the readers we have and those we want, for love of the content, the conversation, etc.), wine. And that’s always the trick.

Coming at it not from science – hat tip to @Lilu for the point that something can easily spark interest in science where not previously existed – but from that social media (PR, marketing) side. So much of this is the same: thinking about the audience, who is there, who you want to be there, how to keep them around, how to expand beyond and of course, write to be understood w/out jargon or hype, how to just get better. All of these are universal blogging truths, and part of this social experiment we’ve got going on: how to educate, entertain, connect. FWIW.

This sounds as if only speaking to those with a pre-existing interest in science is a bad thing. The way I look at it, if people read a few stories that are interesting and relevant to them, they may well become people “with a pre-existing interest in science”. For instance, in high school, science held zero interest for me (and there were literally a couple of popular science books available in my language) until, accidentally, I discovered the exciting world of Hawking (after muddling through loads of pseudoscience); after that I eventually wound up with Randi and finally arrived at the idea of science being a method for discovering the truth, rather than simply a sum of facts. I’m living proof that an interest in a few stories – or a few books – can lead to an interest in science in general.

Basically, I’m trying to say that a few well-written posts can instil an interest in science, which is the best possible outcome. These people ARE the broader selection of readers; they just get rebranded as having a pre-existing interest after reading about it for a while.

@Emily – Yeah, I’d agree with that, and it’s probably the most important thing I missed out. One of the unique aspects of blogging is that you have a bunch of people writing about what they love most, rather than what they are paid to write about. And I think in many (but not all) cases, that comes across in the writing. It’s another step towards hooking in passing readers.

@Steve – “Credibility is gained within the echo chamber and popularity outside.” I loved this. It ties in with what Chris Rowan said on Twitter last night – echo chamber is just a negative way of saying community. Working within it helps to build up kudos that will enable you to go beyond it.

@Carlos – I’m sure there are, but not any good or useful ones to my knowledge. People like Alice Bell would know better. I have no idea why you can’t see my Facebook updates – try signing up to the Not Exactly Rocket Science fan page.

I have noticed that my visits (appart from those who came through common ways such as google or rss feeds) came through social media most times. If someone shares your post in a social network then the information gets spread and often you can have the attention of people who normally is not interested in what you write.

Even if from time to time you write a less technical article with a lower profile and focusing your attention in those people who has curiosity rather than knowledge you can gain new readers.

General public is not interested in science I think because they see Internet as an amusement tool rather than a excellent way to improve our knowledge and also to share it.

Is it the case that credibility is gained within the echo chamber and popularity outside? I’m sure we can all think of popular “science” sites (or magazines) that are not credible, and contain very little real science. This is consistent with the continuum theory. I’m sure that most bloggers would rather be at the “popular” end than the “niche” end. Similarly, majority would start at the niche end and increase in popularity. Long this progression, the echo chamber, as you suggest, increases from friends and colleagues (niche), to a wider “interested” audience and then, fingers crossed, to the broader population.

Throughout university I was taught – perhaps implicitly – to fear the “media”. Every story was pulled apart to find the smallest error, which we all poo-poo’d. Later in life I’ve learned to forgive journalists for minor technical errors if the main message is correct, or there’s a chance it will get the public talking science. The beauty, of course, of blogs is the chance for: (a) the errors to be amended, or (b) the conversation to happen in the comments section for the world to see.

Most of us, I’m sure, fear being smacked down in public (thank goodness I wasn’t nominated for a Golden Globe…). Putting your thoughts in writing requires not just the ability and desire to write (well, if you are fortunate), but the confidence and knowledge to defend those ideas. This is no different from giving a conference presentation or submitting a grant application, journal manuscript or higher degree. Credibility is gained – by peer review, in the broader sense – inside the echo chamber. It is then that we are confident to link to each other’s work and send links to friends and colleague, from which popularity is gained.

[On re-read, this applies more to scientists who move into blogging/journalism. Although the exception, there are good science journalists who move the other way. They are - I suspect - subject to the same (or greater) scrutiny by those residing within the glass house, I mean echo chamber.]

Finally, I often think of the quote from Richard Feynman, “If you can’t explain something to a first year student, then you haven’t really understood it” to inspire plain-English writing.