Public
Scitable has a piece on the place of new science bloggers in the blogosphere that’s really rubbing me up the wrong way. First, the bits I agree with: people who are good should do well regardless of whether they are veterans or newbies; and this is not always the case. This is why I do my weekly missing links and monthly tip-jar. Here’s where it loses me: the argument is that the stable size of science blogging networks is depriving new bloggers of “chances” and that “not only is this unfair but it's also unmeritocratic.”
First, anytime I read the word “unfair” in an opinion piece,I cringe a little.
Second, this has always been the way it works. Back when ScienceBlogs was the only big name in town, it was harder for people who weren’t part of the obvious go-to behemoth. That did not stop good indie bloggers from having an impact (Mind Hacks, anyone?) or from growing in size to eventually join a network. In fact, I would urge you to think of a time when it was easy for newcomers in a field to make a big impact. Or a field, for that matter.
Third, every single suggestion that is subsequently put forward to rectify this situation is about giving new bloggers opportunities rather than them creating those opportunities for themselves. That smacks of entitlement to me, especially in an ecosystem that I’d wager is more meritocratic than it has ever been. Here are some alternative suggestions:
1) Pull your finger out and work really f**king hard. Stay up late. Practice. Sacrifice your social time. Churn out a crazy amount of output. Practice. Enter competitions. Practice.
2) Give people a reason to read you. There are plenty of competent writers and not enough time to read them. Maybe you are the go-to person for a topic. Maybe you write like an angel. If you want to stand out, stand out.
3) Tell people about yourself. Promote your work. If you want to be recognised, then it’s not enough to be good and shout into the ether. And I don’t mean in a narcissistic, self-aggrandising way. You don’t even have to directly point to your work. Just let people know you exist. Socialise and interact with them. Do it on Twitter, in comments, on Facebook, whatever. Twitter in particular is a massive meritocracy. The editor-in-chief of Scientific American will promote someone’s first post if it’s good! Look at the number of new blogs that have made instant names for themselves in this way (see: anything Ivan Oransky does).
4) If you are lucky enough to be given an opportunity, grasp it as quickly as possible because the momentum fades. If you haven’t been given opportunities, maybe you should try to create some. If you’re not part of a network (and want to be; loads don’t), are you sitting around waiting to be invited or did you cold-call and ask for feedback?
5) If it’s been several years and you’re not getting anywhere... that’s about right. Building a reputation takes time. It is demotivating and miserable in the meantime. Suck it up. Do what you do because it makes you personally fulfilled. Don’t expect a windfall; that will come after a lot of work.
6) Go to 1.
First, anytime I read the word “unfair” in an opinion piece,I cringe a little.
Second, this has always been the way it works. Back when ScienceBlogs was the only big name in town, it was harder for people who weren’t part of the obvious go-to behemoth. That did not stop good indie bloggers from having an impact (Mind Hacks, anyone?) or from growing in size to eventually join a network. In fact, I would urge you to think of a time when it was easy for newcomers in a field to make a big impact. Or a field, for that matter.
Third, every single suggestion that is subsequently put forward to rectify this situation is about giving new bloggers opportunities rather than them creating those opportunities for themselves. That smacks of entitlement to me, especially in an ecosystem that I’d wager is more meritocratic than it has ever been. Here are some alternative suggestions:
1) Pull your finger out and work really f**king hard. Stay up late. Practice. Sacrifice your social time. Churn out a crazy amount of output. Practice. Enter competitions. Practice.
2) Give people a reason to read you. There are plenty of competent writers and not enough time to read them. Maybe you are the go-to person for a topic. Maybe you write like an angel. If you want to stand out, stand out.
3) Tell people about yourself. Promote your work. If you want to be recognised, then it’s not enough to be good and shout into the ether. And I don’t mean in a narcissistic, self-aggrandising way. You don’t even have to directly point to your work. Just let people know you exist. Socialise and interact with them. Do it on Twitter, in comments, on Facebook, whatever. Twitter in particular is a massive meritocracy. The editor-in-chief of Scientific American will promote someone’s first post if it’s good! Look at the number of new blogs that have made instant names for themselves in this way (see: anything Ivan Oransky does).
4) If you are lucky enough to be given an opportunity, grasp it as quickly as possible because the momentum fades. If you haven’t been given opportunities, maybe you should try to create some. If you’re not part of a network (and want to be; loads don’t), are you sitting around waiting to be invited or did you cold-call and ask for feedback?
5) If it’s been several years and you’re not getting anywhere... that’s about right. Building a reputation takes time. It is demotivating and miserable in the meantime. Suck it up. Do what you do because it makes you personally fulfilled. Don’t expect a windfall; that will come after a lot of work.
6) Go to 1.
View 53 previous comments
On the point +Kristjan Wager made to +Chris Clarke, I can relate to the phenomenon you described - "guest blogger becoming regular blogger". I blog at a comparatively minor and tiny little indie science blog - Parasite of the Day (http://dailyparasite.blogspot.com/). It was founded last year by Susan Perkins at the American Natural History Museum to celebrate the UN year of biodiversity by showcasing the diversity of parasites. I started out making regular contribution to the blog and ended up writing ~30-something of the 365 post in total (Susan wrote up most of the rest - one for everyday of 2010 - which I consider an enormous achievement on her part).
This year, because of her professional commitments, and also because I contributed regularly (and enthusiastically) last year, she made me a co-admin of that blog. This allows me post whenever I want/can, and I always try to do so regularly. So now I am the regular writer of that blog. I had also decided to switched up the style a bit half-way through the year. Instead of featuring random interesting parasites (which I still think was really fun to do), I decided to use the blog to write about new papers being published on parasites (which have not been covered in the major blogs) which we have not yet featured on the blog (and believe me, there are a lot ), so now the posts this year read something more like science journalism than "oh hai, check out this kewl parasite!".
Now, I can't say if that has made our little blog more popular or not - I always link to the blog here on G+ whenever I write a new post, and I know Susan links to any new posts I have written via her FB and Twitter, but it is an example of someone who was working in the background on a guest basis on a blog in the beginning and progressively worked towards taking a more regular and even major role.Nov 7, 2011
Jason, thank you for linking to that conversation!Nov 7, 2011
+Kristjan Wager I started at Deep Sea News as a guest blogger, as had one other contributor. In fact Deep Sea News has a very rich history of guest blogging http://deepseanews.com/about/guest-writers/. But we offer guest blogging on DSN because most scientists don't want to blog full time. They prefer to take advantage of our built in audience that we've curated for over 7 years. This is something we actively seek out and encourage. One our core values (stay tuned to DSN in the 2 weeks for more on these) is to provide "perspective through a plurality of voices". But it is cause I also know that most new bloggers fizzle out. One of these days I'll back through the science blog archives and prove this. The jump into it naively (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/evo-eco-lab/2011/10/04/on-naivete-among-scientists-who-wish-to-communicate/). Not a bad thing, just a reality.I think the Sci-Am and Scientopia guest blogs do an excellent job of doing the same.
Supporting new science bloggers is nothing new in the science blogosphere. We did it informally 2-5 years ago, now we do it actively through a variety other means (links of the day/week, guest blogging, Ed's tip jar, continuing conversations on other blogs). One thing I have anecdotally noticed in the last year is fewer people are letting me know that they've written something I'd be interested in. So maybe newer bloggers need to be more entrepreneurial and pimp their posts out. Remember, we are balancing on the consumer-producer line, plus many of us have our eyeballs on the screen at different times of the day. It is too easy to miss something really good. Tweet that shit out multiple times a day.Nov 7, 2011
out standingNov 7, 2011
Interesting post. I generally distrust the whole "bootstrap" myth generally, having been around long enough to know better. But the hard work part is definitely essential.
As it happens, I am putting together a science blogging network to address general science topics, particularly how-to and encouragement for people doing their own science. So if there are science bloggers out there working on their craft, or looking for something new, we should talk. (http://citizenscientistsleague.com/write-for-csl/)Nov 7, 2011
Thanks for this rich exchange, everyone! Nuff said.Nov 9, 2011
Add a comment...