A question to my readers 10 Jan 2011 Early January is by tradition a time of soul searching, reflection and dieting. I am also about to move from Brisbane to Sydney, and take up a new direction, and I was wondering about the use of this blog. I’ve been blogging now since February of 2007, first at Blogspot, the at Scienceblogs and now here. In that time I have blogged around 3500 posts, which is a fair bit of writing. But I have found that not many people link to me if any, nobody awards me any awards, and my traffic is stable at around 600 readers a day. Clearly I am not setting the world on fire. I’m no Bora Zivkovic. I didn’t intend to be. Instead I blogged just to get ideas out there, and to get what feedback I could. However, either my profession is not all that inclined to read blogs, or they simply do not like this one, because I rarely get feedback from professional philosophers, let alone philosophers of biology. It’s clear to me they don’t read it. So as a professional tool, Evolving Thoughts is not successful. It doesn’t even get linked to in the blogrolls of other philosophers or philosophy group blogs. No link love… Perhaps as an outreach tool? I try to make philosophical issues of biology relevant to a wider audience, but like I say, readership rarely changes unless I say something nasty about religious views. Such cheap readership rises do not translate into long term readers either. So I cannot say that it is a good tool for that purpose either. The link posts I used to do are now covered by Twitter, which is more immediate and easier. I sometimes draft work in progress here for comment, and often I have had good feedback, but from historians and scientists, not philosophers, and they tend to be the usual suspects, like Thony Christie (who did get an award for his blog). I don’t find that non-regulars comment. Now I have an ego of the usual size for a philosopher, which is to say that it needs Extra Large undies. But given the enormous effort it takes to do this blog, I have to ask: is it worth it? Is my writing so opaque and boring, and are my topics so esoteric and technical, that I should not do this except very rarely? I don’t know. I don’t want just to be an ego. I put it to you guys; seriously, should I continue to do this, or instead concentrate on publishing? I can still post via Whewell’s Ghost occasionally. Or is there something I can do to get into the conference speaker circuit and make millions like PZ? Philosophy
Evolution A schism in the Church of Dick 26 Feb 201018 Sep 2017 I know, it’s just schadenfreude on my part and it’s so very childish, but I can’t help it. The Church of Dick has undergone a schism, with the prophet anathematising previously loyal followers. But, and I state this for the record, it isn’t anything like a religious movement. Nope… Should… Read More
Evolution Butler’s word games 11 Sep 2009 Gary Nelson recently sent me a paper from G. G. Simpson, published back around 1961: Simpson, GG. 1961. Lamarck, Darwin and Butler, three approaches to evolution. The American Scholar 30 (2):239-249. Unfortunately, this is not online, even through JSTOR, but it’s a wonderful essay, in which Simpson excoriates Samuel Butler’s… Read More
Epistemology Do atheists “relapse”? 31 May 2010 Carol Everhart Roper at OpEdNews has an interesting essay “Is there such a thing as an ex-atheist?” and asnwers, anecdotally, no. I tend to agree. While it is a common trope by Christians in particular that they were atheists and converted, in every case with which I am familiar, and… Read More
I would miss your blog – but that is my selfish view. I guess it comes down to do you want to *be* a philosopher or *do* philosophy? If you want to be a philosopher you’ll have to publish, mix with other philosophers and wear the secret decoder ring. But if you want to do philosophy (in my opinion) you have to get out among the ordinary people to ensure that your thoughts are grounded in reality. A blog is one way of doing that, but a guest spot elsewhere may be enough.
My thoughts: Six hundred readers a day means you *are* making a difference. Your work matters to me, for one, as it gives me new perspectives and enlarges the canvas on which I can think about biology & philosophy. To cite a specific recent example, I found your ‘does teleology hang on in Venice’ post, and the ensuing discussion, quite helpful in thinking about my own linguistic tendences — and their philosophical implications– in teaching about natural selection. Musing now: It can be incredibly hard not to pine after the numbers, the links, the love of the bigger blogs. But when that starts to be the metric of success, there’s no end…. it’s the road to ruin, I say! More relevantly perhaps you’re concerned that scholars in your field, the philosophy of biology, aren’t engaging. As a biological anthropologist, I can shed little light here. Perhaps send the link for this post to 10 of them, and see what happens? Or better yet… just decide that cross-disciplinary blogging is extremely cool?
I have to ask: is it worth it? For who? Me? Absofreakinlutely. You? Hard to say, but I hope you get something out of it. Is my writing so opaque and boring, and are my topics so esoteric and technical, that I should not do this except very rarely?/ I’m your average-dumb-as-a-box-o’-rocks-joe and even I enjoy and appreciate you writing (doesn’t appear that’s what you are hoping for, audience-wise, but there you have it.) I don’t know. I don’t want just to be an ego. I put it to you guys; seriously, should I continue to do this, or instead concentrate on publishing? I can still post via Whewell’s Ghost occasionally. Add me to the please continue to do this [and thepretty please not the PZ schtick] tally.
My readership averages about forty a day, optimistically. Speaking as a representative of the group “nonscientist nonphilosophers who knew you from Terry Pratchett fandom before the blogging thing started”, I say keep blogging.
I for one will miss your posts. I follow you since Sb, but always through google reader – I don’t know if your stats take it into account, but you have 741 people subscribed to you through it. And 600 readers per day is a very decent number.
Leo Martin has a good point – I read all your posts but because I read them in my RSS reader and don’t click through, it doesn’t register as a pageview. Don’t lose heart! You do really good work – I enjoy it immensely. Thank you.
As a scientist and an ineffective blogger, I cannot offer any advice as to how to make a living from blogging. However, in terms of outreach, I consider 600-1500 readers to be quite respectable; I would have been thrilled to have 50. An audience of that size is not going to change the world noticably, but it will still have an impact. This is the best philosophy of science blog that I know of (i.e. it is the best aligned with my own interests). Maybe I just haven’t explored the philosophical blogosphere fully. Do you think that you are offering something unique to your readers, or would other bloggers cover the same topics from the same perspective that you do? If the latter is true, then you should probably retire from blogging and just act as a gatekeeper — pointing readers to insightful writing. If I ever have a meaningful blog, you will be on the list of invited writers. I can tell that you put a lot of effort into this blog, and that is probably more than I will ever dedicate to a blog. If you decide that your time is better spent elsewhere, I will miss your writing, but understand completely. I will continue to follow whatever you do online… even if I have to sign up for Twitter.
Well, if you would tweet the weather from Chapel Hill… PZ gets people riled up; it’s all about the drama. Tension sells books, TV/movies, and blogs. How often does he actually post biology? Did you see what he wrote yesterday about the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, before there was much actual, accurate, useful information? Whatever his blogging goal is, I suspect it does not match your vision for this place. Don’t leave, ’cause I’ll just send you *more* email. And so will my brother.
I’m reading, for my part. I’m bad about commenting, but I’m definitely reading. I’m only a grad student, but I’d be happy to post more graduate-student-caliber comments! I suppose I’m never sure how interested blog authors actually are in commentary…
Something to keep in mind is that most people won’t be people (like myself) who end up running through their staple list of blogs once a day or so; most will drop in every few days. So 600 a day translates into a rather larger number of actual people dropping by. And, of course, being recognized for anything has its disadvantages; both times f0r the Three Quarks contest-thing someone has nominated almost the only post in the previous year that I felt thoroughly embarrassed to have written. And there’s an added embarrassment to the fact that apparently the Me that is memorable to readers is Me at my worst. I’ve found myself that philosophers in the blogosphere tend not to be very quick to discuss topics outside their own fields, and I think you have a hard set of topics in that respect, since much of what you do crosses those imaginary boundary lines people lay out for convenience. Also, philosophy is a field that, unlike history, or some of the sciences, or even mathematics, has always struggled somewhat with the blogosphere as a medium; and with Twitter, Facebook, and the like the blogosphere has ended up changing quite a bit anyway, leading, I think, to a less chatty group of philosophy bloggers. In ancient times of yore, six years ago, there was a lot of interchange of ideas, mostly among the graduate student bloggers, with some undergraduates and professors thrown in, but most of those blogs have vanished for one reason or another, and the blogs that have since replaced them have only occasionally tended to be as good for discussion and often haven’t lasted long, anyway (in part I think because philosophers are afraid of looking like fools in black and white when they can’t at least put it on their CV, and so tend to like only discussions they have complete control over, or that occur according to well-defined conventions, which does not sit well with blogging). And linkage has massively fallen off, too; I used to get linked fairly regularly and now only get linked on occasion, and rarely on my philosophical posts. You’d be missed, that’s for sure. But on the other hand, I’m very much of the view that blogging should never become onerous, and it’s worthwhile to remember (although I have difficulty remembering it) that, on its own, blogging is an ephemeral medium: if something written on a blog lasts for five years it’s the rare exception rather than the rule. And that means that anyone who’s blogging should either be doing it just for a lark or be using it as a path to something else. So I think in reality it comes down to the question of whether you still find yourself fitting into one or both of those two groups.
… should I continue to do this, or instead concentrate on publishing … As a philosaholic, I’d say it doesn’t matter much … as long as you can publish a paper or book every day or two. Otherwise, I might just have to sue you for sending me into the DTs (desideratum terminus).
John, First, I routinely read your blog on whatever topic is discussed. I am always impressed by your historical breadth and biological relevance. Second, my advice would be pretty simple — blog about those things you are researching. My little forays into blogging were of that sort. Here is a preamble to a paper I am working on, or here are some thoughts I am working out. A blog needn’t take you away from research but yet still can edify your readers. Just my two cents. cheers jay
Well, I’m a code monkey who’ll never be more than an amateur philosophy fanboi, but I’ve enjoyed and learned from your writings ever since t.o days, so yeah I’d miss it if you quit blogging. (You’re in my RSS feed; whether I click through or not depends mostly on whether the post fits within one page of Google Reader).
I would prefer you to keep blogging. You are a source of many ideas that I would not otherwise encounter. Moreover, you are a very good writer and explain things very well.
Here’s one philosopher of science who knows of you and your work because of your blog. (Your e-mails to the HOPOS list always catch my eye because of your celebrity status.) I’m not exactly a philosopher of biology, perhaps, but since all of biology is just repackaged physics . . . 🙂 It’s my impression that philosophers tend not to pay much attention to blogs in general. Let’s face it, we all have “real” work that we were supposed to have to the editor last month. I used to read Brian Weatherson’s blog back in the day, but I haven’t looked at it for years now (is it even still up and running?). I don’t even check out Leiter unless I have a reason to be paying attention to the job market. (I can say that because I blog under a pseudonym.) For me hanging out on blogs is goof-off/procrastination time. (Like now, I really should be finishing up a draft of a paper.) I think your blog is great, and I often “star” your posts in my Google reader to come back to and read through more carefully when I’ve got some free time. (Which somehow never seems to happen.) But if I’m going to be spending time and mental energy on real philosophy, I’m probably going to be doing my own work. I will say that I’ve found many a useful tidbit in your posts. PZ has found a niche selling controversy — which is fun — and is what drew me to his site (I think it was a link from Leiter in the old days), through which I found yours. If you want to be on the speaker circuit, I’d guess you need to think about what sells (and to whom). Anyhow, you’ll need to judge how to prioritize your time, but for what it’s worth, I appreciate your product. (Perhaps I’ll be in a position to invite you up for a talk at some point, but it wouldn’t be until post-tenure, and your living on the far end of the globe doesn’t help either.)
This is the first blog I check each day. If you stop, then I will miss it. However, it is really up to you and how you budget your time. People got to know of you from your talk.origins usenet posts. And I doubt that many professional philosophers were following that. That would be why you have many biologists (and the occasional mathematician) among your readers, but few philosophers.
1. If you keep blogging, I’ll keep reading. 2. I like your link postings as much as your more “serious” output. Tweeting those links just doesn’t do it for me. 3. If you want to increase readership from 600 to 6000, say, you will need to lower your brow somewhat. Your target audience for new readers should be biology undergrads – aim to acquire x% of the ones that regularly read at least four blogs in their field. (You will have to solve for x yourself.) How do you acquire those readers? Well, obviously, you engage in reciprocal linking with the other bloggers who are tapping that market. And, post some art – pictures of creepy-crawlies and charismatic mega-fauna. Don’t settle for cephalopods or lolcats. 4. But even if you do increase readership by one or two orders of magnitude, you still aren’t going to make money blogging. 5. And stop posting about theism and its enemies. Or Australian politics. Or especially American politics. If you want to generate excitement by attacking something, attack bad science (particularly philosophically bad science). Attack entire research programmes. Attack publishers. Attack funding agencies. Attack prominent philosophers and scientists. But please don’t attack blogging dicks for being dicks. That only encourages them.
Yeah, ditto to point 5: If you want to generate excitement by attacking something, attack bad science (particularly philosophically bad science). Attack entire research programmes. Attack publishers. Attack funding agencies. Attack prominent philosophers and scientists. To re-iterate my comment far below: gird your loins and go to battle. You and I had many and long discussions about the problems in science. Much of the discussion regarding the teaching of evolution is about the threat to science from without – the creationists and their ilk. Personally, I think that’s a bit of a storm in a teacup; highly aggravating, but a left-over from earlier times. What is the REAL threat to science (ALL science) is the persistent loss of good minds from the field, which I principally attribute to the progressive accretion of bureaucracy and the institutionalization of science. My thought is this: just as we don’t really need a representative democracy to decide where our taxes go, with the internet permitting us to set our own level of support to different agencies of government, we also don’t need a huge, inefficient mechanism to put money into the labs and teaching programs that we think are worthy of support. Start a crusade. Make it for the secular humanist cause. Get it published and linked. I’ll be in the front line; you know it. I’ve thought about making something like FB for science, but instead of a pyramid with the people at the bottom, to put scientists at the top, where they belong. Then, invite the rest of the world to come and look at the science that is being done, and contribute directly to science. Like WikiLeaks, but WikiScience… You choose where your dollars go for research. No More Money on Administration: NMMA. Find a better acronym… Money On Research Efforts: MORE.
You’re on my blogroll! I know how you feel about the difficulties of sustainably growing an audience but I wouldn’t give up. Everyday I have to remind myself that hundreds of people reading me is no small thing, regardless of it’s smaller than what PZ gets by many magnitudes.
Yes, your blog is worth writing. I would be say to see it vanish. It may be true that your hit-count is not up to some other blogs, but the contents are often talked about on other blogs – like Panda’s thumb . If there was some way to count “citations” of you blogs, maybe the ego would feel better? 😉
I enjoy reading many of them. I only readthe ones I like the intro of on Facebook though. They can sometimes be quite funny in a humble way too. I would say a lot more people read and or start reading them than comment but just dont have the time or extroversion to make commments.
Dear John (Never thought I’d write a dear John letter) I have been following your blog since I discovered it last year, I’ve forgotten when, but somewhere around September . I would surely miss it if you stopped, but of course it’s your decision. I know that you’ve had some problems with your career and you’ll need to concentrate on your next move so I will understand if you decide to discontinue. My own degree was in Anthropology, which may have even fewer job prospects than Philosophy, so I have been doing other things for the necesssary crust, but recently retired, I’m considering if I should resume some academic study and philosophy is tempting. I have been reading and following various philosophy blogs (such as there are) and yours is better than many. I’m not much of a commenter because I haven’t sorted out my own ideas yet, after many years of benign neglect. PZ is entertaining, sure, but one PZ is enough, and most of the comments (not all) are only rah rah cheerleading and add very little of substance. Better to have a few considered remarks I’d say. Wishing you all the best from across the Tassie.
A philosophers gotta do what a philosophers gotta do. If you find it too much work for too little return…well, it’s your call. I’d always read your columns in the spirit of ‘works in progress’, assuming they’d be polished and published in the professional press (eventually). I thought it a bit of a privilege to see the raw ideas in the making. …mmm…just did a count here. Four bookmarked astronomy blogs, five biology blogs, five on physics, seven on philosophy.
I wish I had time to read all the outpourings of support. You know you have my vote to continue, as your blog keeps my mind challenged and amused, whereas without it, I would suffer in the perennial intellectual vacuum that passes for university life…yes, still. Though it’s better now than I can remember, still your blog would be a loss. I also find that, reading your blog, I gain access to curated material from all over: you clear out the rubbish and post the interesting links and stories. Finally, regarding linkage, well… I’ll update my site again some day soon. Nearly ready; probably a weekend’s work in it… Your fellow bloggers in the space need to do their work; in some ways, your lament is about the blogging community and their lack of support. Your readers are with you. Gird your loins and go to battle!
Just like the other commenters, I would be sorry to see you stop blogging. Further to that (possibly obvious) point, I would make one comment. The sad and (to me) incomprehensible way you got treated by Bond must be affecting how you see things in general. You know the psychological research on this, I am sure. So, however you feel about blogging right now, it quite possibly has more to do with Bond than blogging. If you really feel like you don’t want to blog at this point in time, then don’t. But I wouldn’t suggest you do anything more than go on a blogoliday, leaving yourself the clear option of returning to it once you feel up to it. And as for the blog failing as a professional tool? You have to be the judge of that but I know that my blog has nothing like your viewer-numbers but, even so, it has been an extremely important professional tool for me, both in terms of getting my ideas out there and in terms of getting my ideas clear in my own head. I also know that I have become aware of your work thanks to your blog. And whatever it is that I am a philosopher of, biology plays a central role in my work.
It is true that I have been shocked and demoralised by the recent unpleasantness. My self confidence has been badly eroded. But I will get over it, as I always do. As I noted, I’m moving cities and states, so that will occasion a gap in blogging anyway (although, I have said this before, and just when I think I’m out of it, they pull me back in).
I’m not a philosopher but I am an evolutionary biologist. I read the RSS feed so maybe that doesn’t count as a hit, but I think your blog is among the most interesting science-related blogs out there. It’s challenged me and help to clarify my thinking on my own field several times – which is several more than PZ’s writing ever has. Life is short, so don’t keep doing it if you don’t enjoy it any more. But don’t stop because you think nobody is listening…
I would miss this blog very much if it disappeared. It is the most thought provoking blog I read. I especially like posts like the post two before about phylogeny, homology and induction, that sets out clearly how evolutionary biology works. Don’t mind PZ: he’s only good when he writes about evo-devo, and the cephalopod pictures.
It’s great stuff John. The world just doesn’t leave most people enough time to respond sufficiently (given the weird emphasis on publishing seven papers a week, and administrators out the wazoo)! I hope you continue.
I can’t say that yours is my favourite blog, and I won’t pretend I wouldn’t soon move on if you did close up shop. There are two things that keep me coming back every day though: 1. Your an Australian voice. I haven’t found too many of those in the fields I’m interested in, and as an Australian, I appreciate an Australian perspective rather than the usual American one. 2. Philosophy is a hobby interest of mine, and you more often than not have interesting articles about topics that I’ve found interesting elsewhere, and you’ve expanded on. So, I appreciate your writing, and I would miss you if you moved on. I also appreciate what you’ve written on your other blog, Drought Resistant Philosopher, perhaps those topics could be brought here? What ever you do, I wish you well.
don’t go John, this is my homepage! If i don’t comment more, its my workload to blame, not your blog. maybe that is true for lots of other professional philosophers too…….
First the silly answer: If you stop blogging, me and Sascha will swim to Sydney (we can’t afford the airfare) and we will both “piss on your carpet”. Now the somewhat more serious ones: As I recently wrote on my own blog I have a ritual every morning in my daily journey through the intertubes. I always read Evolving Thoughts at the end because I like to save the best till last. I am not a biologist, in fact I don’t know the difference between a duckbilled platypus and a rubber duck, and I always start my contributions to philosophy seminars with the phrase “I’m not a philosopher but…” however over the years that I have been reading Evolving Thoughts I have received so many thought provoking and stimulating ideas that I ought to pay you copyright fees every time I use my own brain. You complain about only having 600 readers per day and about the lack of commentators. I would be ecstatic if I had anything remotely approaching that number and I am very happy that I have the number that I have. On comments, some of your threads have more comments than I get in six months. OK it would be fantastic to have so many comments as PZ but lets be honest, some of the single comments on your blog have more content than a months worth of PZ’s threads. I don’t know about you John but I write to sort out ideas in my own brain and if I make ten people happy through the things that I write then I have achieved more than I might have dreamed of in an earlier existence. On my having won an award I have the following to say. Without the old DGM “Guestbook” (ask Jason!) and Evolving Thoughts there wouldn’t be a Renaissance Mathematicus. You praised me when ever I dumped one of my rants in you comments column and then you went on to invite me to guest blog. As you left Science Blogs and set up on your own you invited me to join you in a collective blog, an invitation that motivated me to finally forget my inhibitions and set up my own blog. Without you and without Evolving Thoughts there would be no Cliopatria so I hereby publicly dedicate my win to you and your inspiration and hope that you will be around for a long time to come to stimulate and motivate all of those lucky enough to read your Evolving Thoughts.
I’ve been enjoying your writing since I first read your work on talk origins years and years ago; it would be a terrible shame if you stopped blogging altogether, but of course it needs to be personally rewarding for you to continue doing it. Perhaps after your move, you’ll feel a bit more inspired?
Are you writing for yourself or for the public? I follow because I tend to esoteric thoughts myself, and you post good things to think about. Write want you want to write, not for professional gain, but for yourself. If you’re done, set it aside…
Please continue. You write interesting, thoughtful and informative stuff. And the antipodean perspective is good too. Your readership is probably more engaged with your writings than the readers on many other blogs, because you’re not posting rants or character assassinations, just stuff that has to be read to be appreciated. So you might have fewer readers than some, but they’re higher quality – um, anybody want to disagree? Thought not! Sorry to hear about the employment problems, good luck with getting a new position.
John, you’ve greatly helped me to hone my philosophy of science, both at TO and here. I’m deeply indebted to you. If you had secured tenure, I’d feel that it’s a no-brainer that you should continue. But I suppose at this point, you need to do whatever you need to do for your career. That’s apart taking cheep shots and breaking from civility that might draw millions of minions and a lucrative public speaking/writing career. I also suppose you could write excellent books for the general public, but have no idea about the market.
Yours is one of the blogs I visit more or less every day and I would certainly miss it if you stopped. I read it both because in some areas we have similar views and because, intellectually, it exercises and informs me. You educate the likes of me perhaps more than you realize. Yes, I also read Pharyngula and The Panda’s Thumb for entertainment and the good science pieces, John Pieret for the philosophy and the legal perspective and ThonyC for the historical perspectives and insights, for example, but yous is up there with them. Don’t ever doubt that what you write is good and worthwhile. The obvious truth is that, writing about philosophy, you are never going to attract a large readership unless, like Meierghez, you play the populist card and start cheerleading for a cause. Ultimately, it’s about whether you still enjoy doing it. You’re enttiled to think of yourself. If it’s become a chore rather than fun then stop and at least take a break. Recharge the batteries. Sure we’ll miss it but we’ll survive and we’ll still be here.
Given how many responses you’ve gotten, I don’t think I have anything to say here that has not already been said. But, in the manner of the true contemporary scientist, I’m not going to let that stop me. 1. Personally, I love your blog, and will miss it if it goes away. So, to the extent that your goal is to cater to me, keep writing. 2. It is well written and well thought out. One reason I don’t comment more is that often, when I start reading a post, I’ll be all, “Ooh! I have something to say about that!” But then, by the time I get to the end, I find that you have already thought through what it is that I had to say. I guess one possibility would be to write less thoughtful posts so that people could jump in and correct you. 3. 600 hits a day sounds like a lot to me. Yes, if you focused on papers you might have more impact within philosophy. On the other hand, I think that philosophy (just like every other academic field) has plenty of people who sit around talking to and writing for each other. I think that what you are doing – reaching out really into biology and to a wider audience – matters a lot more in the non-academia-ech0-chamber world. 4. PZ’s success is due partly to the fact that he is a good writer, and partly due to the fact that he basically sits there and shouts, “HEY YOU STUPID CHRISTIANS, GET OFF MY LAWN!!” The sad fact is, the most aggressive internet users are those who come not for information, but for validation. You could probably drum up readership by writing posts that basically say, “People like us rule! People who are different from us suck!” Personally, though, I am much more interested in the type of thing that you do write. 5. I hope that you find writing the blog rewarding in its own right. I’ve only been blogging for about 6 months, but I find it both stimulating and relaxing. I find it a nice format for trying out ideas and ways of expressing them. I also find that it exercises my writing muscles in a different way, and that there are some synergies. I think that I have actually been more productive in my more formal academic writing since I started blogging. So, basically, like everyone else here, I hope you’ll keep going partly for selfish reasons, but if you do decide to close up shop, I wish you the best, and I’ll look for your guest posts elsewhere.
John, forget philosophy for a moment and look at your data from a scientific standpoint. One thing you can conclude from your experiment is: philosophers suck at playing the blogging game, compared to historians and scientists. I bet you can even express that in p values and a nice chart if you were to pull out those readership comments in numbers. 😉 Keep blogging if you like it.
I read Pharyngula and other pop sites to discover what errors are currently popular; I read your site when I’m interested in what might actual be the case. I also very much appreciate the company your blog attracts. The quality of the comments is outstanding even if it comes from a small population of readers. Philosophy is never going to be a mass activity. It is irreducibly elitist, even when it is pursued by poor Greek stone cutters or Australians with uncertain job prospects. I don’t know if Heraclitus was right to say “One man is ten thousand, if he is the best;” but maybe 600 readers a day is ten thousand if they are better than average.
I just thought I’d mention I’m another philosopher of biology who reads your blog frequently, for whatever that is worth. I rarely comment here (or on any blog), in part because systematics isn’t my thing, but I do teach about related issues and I use your blog (in part) to keep up on what is going on in these areas of history and philosophy of biology.
From my far-away view in east coast US, I thought you were a celebrity, and your blog was, I thought, easily the best of the Scienceblogs. It was only 12 posts ago that I learned of the non-rosiness of it. Whatever else, the value of what you do here should not be in question.
You could also do something like what Luke Muelhauser does at Common Sense Atheism- get the people’s attention and once you have it, co-opt them into sophisticated, informed discussion.
I have always enjoyed your musings, sir… In the end, I get not more than 5 but not less than 2 readers a day but I don’t look at my readers to see if I am successful or useful to the world. I imagine that the readers who do come to my blog get a chuckle or two and sometimes walk away with a different point of view than they arrived with. I don’t consider myself a “professional” philosopher, nor an amateur. Trained is a better word for my skill level, if there is such a thing. Personally, I like to think that there is no such an animal as an “amateur” philosopher but more like, there are thinkers and “not thinkers”… You sir, clearly are a thinker and if you leave us now, what will become of us? -bobby http://exchangebarrier.blogspot.com/2009/07/istigkeit-of-je-ne-sais-quoi.html
If you go I’ll miss your writings. You’ve helped me to think more deeply, you’ve educated me in many subjects I never knew existed, you make subjects I thought boring interesting. Whatever you decide to do, may the Gods not bowl so may googlies your way in future.
Hi John, Your site has been a tremendous influence on my future. When I first started reading you regularly about 2 years ago, I knew that I was interested in biology and philosophy was a side interest for me. Your site exposed me to the concept of HPS and I’ve fallen rather head-over-heels for it. I am not a professional and comment about as regularly as I blog (almost never) but I am extremely appreciative of the exposure to philosophical concepts that your site provides (to me). So in that sense, EvolvingThoughts would be an unfortunate casualty if it were to be sent to pasture. Still, I think that I wouldn’t complain too much if you moved the bulk of your posting over to Whewell’s Ghost. I don’t care too much about where I read your posts; so long as I get to read them. In fact, it is much easier for me to follow collaboration sites like that than to stop at 20 different HPS blogs. Thanks for your time, Neil
It’s up to you John. Don’t do it unless you want to do it, I guess. Your blog is hard work some of the time. It makes me think, which may or may not be a good thing (half a brain and I’d be dangerous ;-). You’ve also helped me with book suggestions and how to approach reading technical books. Thanks and best of luck whatever you decide.
John, I’m moderating a session at ScienceOnline this week covering this exact issue. How do you maximize the value (or at least, justify the value) of your blogging in your professional life? Whether you find the number of readers or comments satisfying is something only you can decide. But I think it may help to put them in the context of other modes of communication in your field. I did an Alexa check on your traffic versus some other philosophy sites, and I think you rank equal or higher than most other online philosophy-specific venues. You mention Bora — you may want to check his SiteMeter, which reports 268 visits a day. That underestimates his readership, to be sure (mainly feeds and tweets), but comparing real numbers at least gives you a real yardstick. You have room to grow, but you already have a solid place in the discourse. Your work here has many qualities that fit the missions of major universities. Your readership is international in scope. Your writing engages non-professionals (your Harry Potter posts are very popular!). You have built and continue to maintain an interdisciplinary community, that would otherwise be underserved. The questions raised by blogging are at the forefront of disciplinarity studies. Feel the buzz, use the buzz. Re: Philosophers with a Capital P: Public comment on ideas requires an investment that most professionals will not undertake. They have formal rewards for other forms of engagement. You can shift the rewards by offering an enhanced level of responsiveness. For example, you can invite them to contribute guest posts or do interviews. Those would be Bora-like strategies. It’s a different kind of work and I’m not sure your project needs it. But if you really want more engagement from professional philosophers, you can use your strengths here as a launching point.
I’ve been reading you for years, as well as that other philosophizing great ape, John Pieret. I am very fond of u n d e r v e r s e as well, although sadly Chris’ avatar is non-ape. I would be very annoyed if any of you were to stop blogging. I suppose you would get over it, but be aware that I would nevertheless be grumpy.
PS Meh was in Mexico a while ago and a friend of mine who was also a speaker in the meeting, and who works in science communication for the National University, asked him about “that Australian philosopher that used to have such great posts on Sb” (I suppose he didn’t read your farewell post). See, you make a difference even in non-English speaking countries. Don’t despair. If you feel like taking a break, do so, but DO come back.
Personally, I’ve been blogging five years, and nobody reads it if I don’t post a link on facebook. They know Siggy blogs about esoteric science/philosophy stuff, and his posts are too long. I do it because I enjoy it. And because I’m young and still formulating my philosophical/scientific vision. If I don’t blog, I fill up notebooks instead, most of which won’t be read unless I dye and a close friend gets curious. 600 is quite the number, given the target audience. If you enjoy it, keep going! You’re at the top of my feeds right now, and I’ll be saddened if you vanish.
Hi John, First of all, I’d like to point out that, even when journals try to encourage bloggy type interaction in professional venues (like commenting and rating in PLoS) it usually fails to solicit interaction. One thing to consider may be that if you spend sufficient time composing posts, you may successfully guard against casual dissent or casual criticism for those whose interaction you crave. (As a biologist, I have no idea if this is the case for philosophers who read your site, so maybe my reply here is irrelevant.) Yet, because blogging doesn’t feed into traditional professional reward systems, professionals in your field don’t see it as worth the time (professionally speaking) it would take to respond more fully to a tightly reasoned blog post (as opposed to responding to a tightly reasoned paper, which has professional incentives tied to it). Since changing the incentives of a whole field is beyond the abilities of a single person (I’d love for PLoS’s commenting and rating system to actually be used, for example, but even there, they are ignored), perhaps you can change the nature of your output? Perhaps you can encourage more engagement by making it easier to engage, though at the cost of rigor or polish? Perhaps if there were more areas for traction against your comments, others would charge in and address those points. Of course, I don’t mean to suggest that you leave obvious bait (a distinctly non-professional thing t0 do) but maybe to put more ideas out there that are less polished and more preliminary? Or maybe you already do that and I’m just not competent to judge. Anyway, just thought I’d share that brainstorm.
Okay, to summarise: 1. Lots of you have stroked my not inconsiderable ego. I thank you for this. I never doubted that those who do read me liked doing so, and you have been very loyal and helpful. I am personally at a low point in my life right now, and I needed that. However, this doesn’t quite address the question. I need to know if the blog is working. This leads to: 2. I have many more readers than I had thought. I didn’t know until one commentator (JScarry) noted that I had 741 subscriptions via Google reader. [*sigh* I was once l33t. Now I’m an old fart…] Even more important 3. Several of my professional peers have said they read it. And moreover given explanations for the lack of comments. However 4. This doesn’t explain why I get no link love from philosophy sites. I suspect they don’t see me as a philosopher, but as an evolution or science commentator. 5. I am not cited for arguments on this blog, either on other blogs or in print. I suspect that I must start to put original arguments in print before they appear here. At least three times I have seen my arguments used in print without citation. One I had already published, but they ignored it, and cited the paper in which the argument was put for some minor point. That way they could claim they didn’t plagiarise. So to promote my faltering career, I have to safeguard myself. I will continue to blog. But I may not give it the kind of attention I have done in the pat. I am considering a new blog, though, to make a fresh start. Time will tell. 6. I would still like some recognition in the interwubs. Other kids have awards; why don’t I? *sob*
On point 5, I think that’s smart. My policy – and the policy of the scientists I know who blog – is that if it is an idea that could be part of a paper, I won’t put it in there. In an ideal world, this would not be necessary, but, well, you know. I will occasionally put in original work of some sort if there is basically no chance that I would actually publish it, either because the idea is just too slim, or because I lack the credentials on the topic. An additional thought – which is fairly obvious, and has no doubt occurred to you already – would be to blog about ideas once they have been accepted for publication, but before they have been published. And include the citation. This would generate add value to both your papers and your blog. On point 6, yes, recognition is always nice. But, my sense is that the awards are driven by clubbiness as much as quality. If you want to devote five or six hours a day to tweeting little inside jokes back and forth with the popular kids, I’ll bet you’ll be swimming in awards. And you’ll get a date to the prom!
Re: Point #5 “I am not cited for arguments on this blog, either on other blogs or in print. See sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-does-san-marco-basilica-have-to-do.html
“I suspect they don’t see me as a philosopher, but as an evolution or science commentator.” Perhaps you could put a subtitle in your blog banner that includes the words “philosophy of science.” And perhaps your blogroll could distinguish philosophy of science blogs from science blogs; yes, put your philosophical expertise of classification into blogroll.:) Little things like this could more clearly portray you as a philosopher instead of a science commentator.
Late to the fray, but I’ll say this without reading the comments: a) Imagine you get to say whatever you feel like once a day to an auditorium of 600 people. b) Career-wise, I would think publishing is way better. As your mentor I would advise you to focus on that. c) Consider castration.
Another ego stroke from me. I really enjoy your posts! I’m a scientist and I suspect most of your audience are. As a non-philosopher I don’t feel that I have much that is meaningful to add to the weightier arguments; but then, few people do. The internet is like being on a crowded bus; most people will only speak if spoken to… and half of those that reply… I’d be sad if the blog was forgotten, but I selfishly spend my time researching, rarely blogging, so I can’t blame you for doing the same. I would have thought that there are side benefits to it though; a referee who knows your name and reputation will be “more fair” (!) than one that hasn’t; the same goes for reception in job applications and talks at conferences. But you still need things published. Do the cost/benefit analyis, include lost opportunity costs; then blog about it – or don’t!
Perhaps the problem is that at some point, blogs need to advertise themselves. You got your 60o+ daily readers and your 735 Google Reader subscriptions somehow. Examine what you did to get there. Then, examine the options for growing your blog. Just like in advertising, it’s not (just) how catchy something is, but how often it’s repeated. You do that by asking other blogger’s opinions on posts by you, by tweeting and FB’ing new posts, by commenting in other people’s blogs and always remembering to use the ‘Website’ entry box to create a link to your blog in your name – basically, to get heard more, you participate more. But I’m sure you already know all this. You have a substantial readership so it’s not like blogging isn’t working; I suspect that you’re either using the wrong metrics or trying to fit blogging into an activity sphere that it doesn’t belong. It may very well be that your blogging is so good that people accept your viewpoint without question, what metric have you arranged for to decide that? Granted, that’s a bit of a silly one, but think about it, what metric should you be using to define success? Quotes, like in papers? Well, then start quoting other bloggers, then commenting in that other blogger’s posts about the reply you made and if they would consider reading it. Maybe you’re looking for blogroll links – well, just ask. Most bloggers are more than happy to do so, especially from a blog that gets 1000+ readers a day and especially if you reciprocate. Ask them what heading they would prefer to be organised under – that way you’ll quietly introduce the idea that maybe they should organise their blogrolls the way you do. Lastly, let yourself occasionally be controversial and over-the-top. You’ve got the work part down of blogging, it sounds like you’re having trouble grokking the network effects part of blogging. Anyways, I love your blog, I’m one of those 735 daily google reader subscribers and I would hate to see it disappear just because you were measuring its worth using faulty metrics.
All I can tell you is that I don’t read Bora Zivkovic, and I don’t (shudder) tweet, but I read Evolving Thoughts.
I have two blogs (one Darwin-related, one frivolous), and am about to start a third (on photography). I (honestly) don’t care how many/few readers I have – it’s the quality of the comments which counts. In that respect, you are evidently doing something right, as Evolving Thoughts is the only blog whose Recent Comments RSS feed I subscribe to (the original posts aren’t bad either!). You should blog because you want to, and because you have something worth saying. If you stop enjoying it, take a break, or write on some other subject. But please come back: you’re what blogging should be all about: a unique voice, saying what they think.
John, Your blog is good. I am only an occasional reader but what I read I tend to like a lot. So if you blog for what many people claim to blog, it’s definitely a success and 600 a day is nothing to snear at. But it seems though that you regret that the blog failed as a self-promotion tool. Well, guess what? Having a good product is not enough. One has to work hard to advertise it. Blog-derived self-promotion can be a real boon but it may simply not be what you like to do. You’ve got to: – Leave plenty of comments on other, preferably very popular, blogs AND leave leave explicit links yo your blog posts frequently. – Pander to the popular readership’s interests. – Make stupid/funny or provocative posts once in a while. Pics of pretty girls help. 🙂 – Engage the commenters a lot (you already do). A good example is Greg Laden. The guy has no talents, nothing original or truly interesting to say, and no respectable professional background. But he is good at self-promotion and his blog has become widely popular. Well, you are exact opposite of Greg Laden – and I think it’s a good thing.
OK more ego stroking. I originally discovered your blog due to a link from PZ’s blog on one of his disagreements with you between agnostics and atheists. As a results I read your old posts on agnostics, which I greatly enjoyed and liked. In fact I found your posts much more clearly thought out and presented than PZ’s typical offering. I also found the comments on the post of a much higher quality and most definitely less strident. Also there was a greater set of different opinions and a more respectful tone in the posts and comments. Having said all of this you don’t post often on religious themes so the site is very different from PZ’s harangues, which happens to be why I now typically read and enjoy your blog more than PZ’s. I like to stretch my mind and to be exposed to different ideas and viewpoints and I find your posts and the comments very enjoyable. As a scientist, I’m a geologist, I have no background in philosophy and lots of the more “esoteric” arguments are beyond me and the references to other philosophers miss me entirely but it does stretch my knowledge and teach me new things as I google ideas, concepts, terms and schools of thought. (I only say esoteric as it relates to my experience which is limited to non-existent in regards to philosophy). As a complete outsider in the philosophy realm I can only offer a lay opinion as to why other philosophers don’t link to you, but from reading some of the comments and back & forth between you and some of the other more philosophically educated commenters, could it be that you are just a little to pragmatic and easily understood. I understand and “get” what you are presenting, a fair amount of the ” deeper” philosophical comments lose me entirely in jargon and obscure references. Your blog makes me wish I could take a philosophy course from you or someone of a similar bent, or to sit a discuss things over a beer with you. I will greatly miss your blog should you choose to stop.
I can see your ego is being well stroked. Add a stroke or two from me. I have been chatting to (although you may not remember it) you and reading you (and you will not have noticed that) for a good few years, from the mid 90s in the T.O. days of yore when men were men and trolls were Ray. I have even Bought You A Beer, the highest honour to which any person can hope to aspire, and whilst you also bought me beer, you Made Me Think. This is very important, at least to me. I might not agree with you about everything, but those things I don’t agree about I am probably wrong on anyway, even if I haven’t yet put the effort in to fully find out why. On the issues of blogging, whether it is all worth it, and people pinching your arguments: 1) From the perspective of your consumers it is definitely worth it. If YOU enjoy it, then regardless of how large your audience is, know that there are >0 people who read, enjoy and even occasionally comment. I’ll second that nice Carter fellow, back up thread and go further. I read Pharyngula and other blogs that evolved from T.O. but they very, very rarely make me think. No detriment/insult intended to PZ , but his is a site more dedicated to rallying the troops, and the comments areas are a battleground more than a think tank or area for discussion. It’s phun at Pharyngula, and I love it, but one’s online time is limited ya know. One can (and does) learn things there, but they are usually different things to the things one learns here. To paraphrase “Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” when it comes to making me think “Pharyngula for show, Evolving Thoughts for a pro”! In terms of outreach at least you’ve managed to expand the philosophical horizons of one bloke. 2) Original work. Damn I admire your bravery in sticking it here first. Don’t. People are shits when they want to be. They will pinch good work and claim it as their own. This, I think, you know. That’s all, if I think of anything useful I’ll let you know. Louis
I read your blog somewhat regularly, but it’s more of a “maybe” reading. It’s not on the top of my reading pile. Yet, I always choose to keep your blog in my RSS reader rather than delete every time I audit my reading list – about every quarter or so. So why do I keep it, and why I do NOT read regularly? It’s of course very useful, and thought provoking. And one of the few philosophy blogs that addresses important questions in a layman-approachable manner. But it’s low on my attention list becasue…. I guess I’m going to use a dancing metaphor here. In partner dancing, leading and following is a matter of invitation + response + synchronicity (to music). It’s often not clear what music you are leading to – many blog authors use current-affairs – news – as their ‘music’ and key off that. This helps readers like me because it provides some context, and allows me to further discuss or chat about these ideas with real people in my life. The next peeve is your choice of titles – they fitting, but the aptness is only obvious after reading the article. As a tool that summarizes, and gives me a hint about, the content that I’m about to read, it often fails. Books are often judged by its cover, and your ‘cover’ – the titles – are not descriptive. I will spare you the caveats about how my generalizations are my subjective perceptions, and that generalizations don’t imply absence of (copious) exceptions….. This blog is still on my reading list. Thank you for writing!
I’m one of the Google Reader readers. I have been following since the Sb days, and I am a lay person (I studied science in college but it’s not what I do). I read pretty much everything, but I don’t comment because I know very little about philosophy and I would probably just make a fool of myself. Plus, it seems like you have an active community of commenters already, and I don’t usually care to “pile on” – on any of the blogs I read. I have to say that I enjoy all the posts except the link lists which I skimmed. I also enjoyed the posts about politics in Australia and America and how they differ or resemble each other. I guess the take away from this is: in terms of blogging to improve your life professionally, I am not someone who can do a whole lot to help you (although I did buy Species), so you should take my input with a grain. I am of the camp that you should keep blogging if you enjoy it and I’ll continue to read it. You definitely need to protect your own interests and advance your career, though. If you stop blogging, or reduce it, I will miss it but I won’t hold it against you. I don’t know if that helps with your decision, but anyway it’s what I think.
You are not just an ego. Most of people just don’t have dedication, so amount is not huge. Perhaps professionals know much already, you use much time making clear excamples on “basic stuff”. So anyone who have no trained background can follow. That might be “boring” if you know them already? (I wouldn’t say that from personal experience, but i can quess. I am not a cow, but perhaps I can taste if milk is stale?)
I’m a biologist that does some phylogenetic studies, and this blog has made me think more about the bigger picture of what I’m doing and about the philosophy behind what’s going on. I don’t read every day (or even every week), and when I do read it’s through an RSS reader for the most part. I have no idea what makes one a successful blogger academically speaking, but even if you don’t continue to blog your posts have performed a valuable service informing at least a few biologists at least (judging from the earlier comments as well). Thanks!
I just stumbled in via a blogroll link and like what I see so far. If you truly wish to have more readership my suggestion is to submit some of your more interesting posts to venues with large readership with a link. I think your primary issue is simply poor exposure. An email submission linked by someplace like Instapundit or equal would likely overwhelm your site-server, well named as an instalanche. Pick one.