Comments on: What are blogs good for? http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/what-are-blogs-good-for/ Mon, 07 May 2012 21:35:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Seb http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/what-are-blogs-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-275 Seb Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/?p=151#comment-275 If I may toot my own horn, I wrote a piece a couple years ago that explained a number of ways in which weblogging is useful in research. The section that connects the most closely to your observations is this one: http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/stories/2002/10/03/personalKnowledgePublishingAndItsUsesInResearch.html#uses-pkp If I may toot my own horn, I wrote a piece a couple years ago that explained a number of ways in which weblogging is useful in research. The section that connects the most closely to your observations is this one:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/stories/2002/10/03/personalKnowledgePublishingAndItsUsesInResearch.html#uses-pkp

]]> By: Steven Sheets http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/what-are-blogs-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-276 Steven Sheets Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/?p=151#comment-276 What has always suprised me is how long it was before the blog phenomenon took off. I've been on the internet for about ten years and recall reading blog-like webpages all the way back then. But aside from J. Baez, C. Shalizi and perhaps some others, very few scientists were really taking advantage of the medium. Something of a missed opportunity.... What has always suprised me is how long it was before the blog phenomenon took off. I’ve been on the internet for about ten years and recall reading blog-like webpages all the way back then. But aside from J. Baez, C. Shalizi and perhaps some others, very few scientists were really taking advantage of the medium. Something of a missed opportunity….

]]> By: Seb http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/what-are-blogs-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-277 Seb Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/?p=151#comment-277 My guess is that most scientists are simply too busy writing papers and grant applications. Right now Web work is not really recognized as a contribution to research in performance evaluations and such. My guess is that most scientists are simply too busy writing papers and grant applications. Right now Web work is not really recognized as a contribution to research in performance evaluations and such.

]]> By: Michael Nielsen http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/what-are-blogs-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-278 Michael Nielsen Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/?p=151#comment-278 Seb --- pointer added to your essay. It's an excellent read; thanks for making it available. Regarding why weblogs took so long to take off, it's certainly a perplexing question. It sure isn't because it required a host of technological breakthroughs on top of the web! I agree with Seb's comments, but think network effects also play a big role. Part of the reason I started my blog was because I looked at the blogs of people like Lance Fortnow, Chad Orzel, Dave Harris, Brad DeLong, and John Quiggin, and I saw something I'd like to be part of. Without those people blogging, I'm not sure I would have seen the point; a large part of the point certainly is conversation and cross-linking. Regarding academic recognition for weblogs, I recall John Quiggin saying that he often uses his weblog to throw up trial ideas, or try out drafts of his writing. So, for him at least, the weblog forms part of his overall working style. Seb — pointer added to your essay. It’s an excellent read; thanks for making it available.

Regarding why weblogs took so long to take off, it’s certainly a perplexing question. It sure isn’t because it required a host of technological breakthroughs on top of the web!

I agree with Seb’s comments, but think network effects also play a big role. Part of the reason I started my blog was because I looked at the blogs of people like Lance Fortnow, Chad Orzel, Dave Harris, Brad DeLong, and John Quiggin, and I saw something I’d like to be part of. Without those people blogging, I’m not sure I would have seen the point; a large part of the point certainly is conversation and cross-linking.

Regarding academic recognition for weblogs, I recall John Quiggin saying that he often uses his weblog to throw up trial ideas, or try out drafts of his writing. So, for him at least, the weblog forms part of his overall working style.

]]> By: Seb http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/what-are-blogs-good-for/comment-page-1/#comment-279 Seb Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/?p=151#comment-279 Network effects are indeed critical, Michael. Also I'd guess that the fact that you spend quite a bit of time in the "meta" realm - thinking about how research is done, etc., helped you feel a connection with the people you have cited, in spite of them not being specialized in your exact area. Network effects are indeed critical, Michael. Also I’d guess that the fact that you spend quite a bit of time in the “meta” realm – thinking about how research is done, etc., helped you feel a connection with the people you have cited, in spite of them not being specialized in your exact area.

]]>