http://cenblog.org/2008/09/09/to-blog-and-how-to-blog-that-is-the-question/ Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:45:54 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 http://cenblog.org/2008/09/09/to-blog-and-how-to-blog-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-3090 psi*psi Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:42:33 +0000 http://cenblog.org/2008/09/09/to-blog-and-how-to-blog-that-is-the-question/#comment-3090 In my eyes, one of the defining characteristics of a blog--as opposed to C&EN and the like--is casual language. I think--in addition to being entertaining and maybe informative--blog posts should be fairly accessible to the general public. We all see how badly science can be butchered in the tiny space it gets in the newspaper, and how underrepresented chemistry is in general-interest science magazines. If people are going to have any idea what chemists do, they're going to have to find out from us! Unlike other media, blogs are (should ideally be?) comment-driven. If readers aren't sufficiently engaged to respond with anything, you're doing it wrong. This is why posts on controversial topics tend to garner more comments, whereas specialized technical content will usually only get a few experts to speak up. I agree with Neil that you could maybe use a little more actual chemistry here. (Newsbytes is really interesting, but you're not writing the articles you link in those posts.) You're not confined to a specific niche of our science, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find something cool to write about. The trouble in writing a technical post, though, is realizing when you've lost your audience. It's also difficult to cover background that some readers are familiar with...without sounding condescending. There's also the trouble of drawing contempt from readers who assume you don't know much about the subject matter--it's a very delicate balance. When things work out correctly, though, readers will have something interesting to say--and their ideas will make up a fair amount of your content. That's the coolest part of blogging something worth reading--you learn a lot from your audience! In my eyes, one of the defining characteristics of a blog–as opposed to C&EN and the like–is casual language. I think–in addition to being entertaining and maybe informative–blog posts should be fairly accessible to the general public. We all see how badly science can be butchered in the tiny space it gets in the newspaper, and how underrepresented chemistry is in general-interest science magazines. If people are going to have any idea what chemists do, they’re going to have to find out from us!
Unlike other media, blogs are (should ideally be?) comment-driven. If readers aren’t sufficiently engaged to respond with anything, you’re doing it wrong. This is why posts on controversial topics tend to garner more comments, whereas specialized technical content will usually only get a few experts to speak up. I agree with Neil that you could maybe use a little more actual chemistry here. (Newsbytes is really interesting, but you’re not writing the articles you link in those posts.) You’re not confined to a specific niche of our science, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to find something cool to write about.
The trouble in writing a technical post, though, is realizing when you’ve lost your audience. It’s also difficult to cover background that some readers are familiar with…without sounding condescending. There’s also the trouble of drawing contempt from readers who assume you don’t know much about the subject matter–it’s a very delicate balance. When things work out correctly, though, readers will have something interesting to say–and their ideas will make up a fair amount of your content. That’s the coolest part of blogging something worth reading–you learn a lot from your audience!

]]> http://cenblog.org/2008/09/09/to-blog-and-how-to-blog-that-is-the-question/comment-page-1/#comment-3087 Neil Gussman Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:08:28 +0000 http://cenblog.org/2008/09/09/to-blog-and-how-to-blog-that-is-the-question/#comment-3087 I like to see the stuff where ACS is the source of info. Newsbytes is not "bloggy" enough for me. I want Ivan Amato to post something that corrects a story on material science, or Marc Reisch explaining why a particular coating works--or doesn't, or Stu Borman's view of a new analytical instrument, or Melody Voith correcting a story on earnings and saying what is really going on. I have a blog about going back in the Army. It's not whole Army--it's my view of the Army. The blogs on my blogroll (including CENtral Science) have a perspective I cannot get from Newsfeeds or other blogs. I like to see the stuff where ACS is the source of info. Newsbytes is not “bloggy” enough for me. I want Ivan Amato to post something that corrects a story on material science, or Marc Reisch explaining why a particular coating works–or doesn’t, or Stu Borman’s view of a new analytical instrument, or Melody Voith correcting a story on earnings and saying what is really going on. I have a blog about going back in the Army. It’s not whole Army–it’s my view of the Army. The blogs on my blogroll (including CENtral Science) have a perspective I cannot get from Newsfeeds or other blogs.

]]>