I’ve spotted a trend in the number of comments I get on this blog.
Posts that are primarily about science:
Average comments per post: 7.3 (n=33)
Other posts:
Average comments per post: 14.1 (n=28)
Extrapolating from the most-commented posts here and on other NN blogs in a shameless attempt to get more comments, I ask you the following question:
Is Sarah Palin good for my tomatoes?
Your posts are just not controversial or trendy enough, Cath. I like reading them, though 🙂
Thanks!
Sarah Palin may not harm your tomatos, but if she had her way, she would harm your fruit flies!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wezdbLqRnzs)
Actually, let me add something: there have been a few other posts around here lately that have made me wonder about their intention – as good as they were content-wise, I wasn’t entirely sure the motivation wasn’t simply to provoke. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s been getting a bit frequent.
As many science posts as you feel like, Cath, please – I’ll be an interested reader, if not always commenter!
just as important, are your fruit flies good for Tina Fey?
Sarah Palin is bad for fruit flies
Sarah Palin is good for Tina Fey
Tina Fey is bad for Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin is bad for bears
Bears are bad for Matt
Discuss
And Steffi, if you can understand the intention behind that comment, you’re doing better than me!
Yes, I am bumping up my comments by talking to myself.
Hey, nothing wrong with that – I bump up my feedback in everyday life by doing just that…
Cath, I don’t think that the best blog posts are necessarily those with the most comments. You can also look at the number of links to your blog via Technorati or ask Corie or Matt about the number of page views. But in the end it’s probably just your own feeling: you should like your blog posts.
It’s also true that the correlation between the number of comments a blog attracts, and the amount of times it’s been cited, is loose to non-existent. This post got only nine comments, but I am told by the NN people that it attracted more traffic than anything else on my blog, or indeed anywhere else on NN. It even got a mention in the diary column of The Times. Go, as they say, figure.
It’s because you had a picture of what you claimed was a great big willy.
Yes, that’s probably it. Sex
cellssells.I was wondering what the etiquette on commenting on one’s own posts is. On one of my recent posts I replied to some comments and then wanted to post some further thoughts. But that would have been 3 comments in a row from me, and I thought it looked a bit odd so I refrained.
@ Frank – sometimes in that situation I edit the post itself, or add a PS.
Is Sarah Palin good for my tomatoes?
@ Cath – Judging from the high-traffic blogs elsewhere, you’ll need to reword that innocuous question into some sort of provocative and insulting generalization. Examples:
Sarah Palin is against tomato plant research because, like all Alaskans, she has a poor understanding of nutrition, and feeds her family nothing but moose meat, wolf stew, and Krispy Kreme Donuts.
Sarah Palin was speaking against organic farming methods in Texas yesterday, where everyone is so ignorant about science, and brain-damaged by pesticides, that they all agreed with her and cheered.
I’ve left out the usual negative descriptors ending with “
tard” or beginning with “religio“, but you get the idea, I think.I think Martin said it best, that you should like your own blog posts. I often don’t comment on the posts (both here at NN, and at ScienceBlogs) that I like best, simply because I have nothing valuable to add to a superb, intriguing, cohesive piece of writing. I don’t feel compelled to write comments on the pages of novels that I enjoy reading, and similarly, I don’t need to add my two cyber-cents worth to everything I read online. Or, I may not comment because the topic is outside my experience and expertise (but is nevertheless interesting to me).
@Kristi and everyone… Or, I may not comment because the topic is outside my experience and expertise (but is nevertheless interesting to me).
..but I think it’s ok to ask a question, or add something you’re not sure is 100% correct, right? Otherwise, most conversations would get stifled by some kind of ‘necessary experience level’, I think.
(Of course I have to ask this, because my ‘experience and expertise’ is so absolutely different from most others on here that I probably ask really dumb questions half the time!)
but I think it’s ok to ask a question, or add something you’re not sure is 100% correct, right?
I think the ‘necessary experience level’ for posting comments or questions depends on the individual’s comfort with same. Some people are willing or inclined to comment at length on things about which they know little or nothing (though I don’t see much of that here at NN). ‘Experience level’ is a more flexible comparison-the commenter might just be genuinely curious, or might be trying to relate the post to a somewhat different experience she or he has had.
To be honest, sometimes when I’ve had a long and demanding day in the lab, or teaching, I can’t muster the intellectual energy that evening to comment on a post, even if I found it relaxing and enjoyable to read.
Thanks everyone! This post was really just a bit of Friday facetiousness (I promise you that I don’t cry into my cornflakes if I only get 1 comment on a post!), but it’s actually turned into an interesting discussion!
Never let a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter prevent you from commenting. Or, indeed, blogging about it…