Proprietor’s beef of the week

November 17, 2014 • 6:37 am

It takes several hours to write a science post, for when I’m reporting on a paper like the one about the cat genome yesterday, I read the paper twice, and then go over it again before summarizing it. In toto, that post probably involved four hours of effort, most of it in the evening. About a dozen people bothered to comment.

A post on atheist issues, or on “readers’ beefs”, often takes no more than 25 minutes to write. Those posts can garner between 40 and 150 comments.

The lack of comments on science posts, leads me to wonder if people even read them, or read them but have nothing to say, or just skip them as seeming “too hard” (I, as well as Matthew and Greg) strive to make them comprehensible to science-interested readers).

If it’s the latter, what’s the point of writing about science? But if I couldn’t do that, I wouldn’t want to run this website.  I could turn it into the Daily Mail of atheist sites, but there’s already an entire blog network devoted to drama, rage, and recrimination.

All I can say is that this is dispiriting.

370 thoughts on “Proprietor’s beef of the week”

  1. I will only comment when I feel I have something constructive to add, and because of my expertise, that is likely to be infrequent here. I read this blog because I find the science fascinating. I do not comment for the sake of commenting.

    Please do not be dispirited.

    1. I was about to say exactly the same – I comment on articles I feel qualified to comment on. That rules out the science stuff but I find them fascinating. Do not mistake a lack of comments for a lack of engagement. Thanks. 🙂

      1. Keep up the good work Jerry your website is the best I know of for a science based view of so many issues even though I very rarely comment or ‘like’

        1. I only comment when I have useful info, mostly i lurk reading articles that interest me.

          Don’t judge the quality of your article or the effort by the comment count.

          The Daily Fail gets loads of comments, but is still sh1te!

    2. Same here. I do read most of the science articles and find them fascinating — but I’m not qualified to say much more than “oh, wow” and that would seem lame given the intelligence of the original post.

      There are some topics I do skip over, but you’ve got such a range of stuff to talk about I think it would be the rare reader who focuses on everything.

      1. Absolutely. The science posts are the best: where else can you learn something cutting edge for free? Yes, if I’m not qualified to comment (the vast majority of the time) I’ll leave it to the experts: e.g. Neanderthal/Denisovan/Homo sapiens DNA links are inherently fascinating. Please don’t lose heart on the science, Jerry, Greg and Matthew. Reading but not commenting is still a participatory sport. x

      3. IMO, a simple “oh wow”* would at least show Jerry that his time & effort are appreciated. They’re easy to scroll through, so it’s not like you’d be wasting anyone’s time.

        I used to shy away from that sort of response myself, but then I began to worry about it looking as if no one were reading the science posts!

        *Or maybe simply, a “thank you for writing this.” Actually it would only take one such comment, and all the rest could be “+1, +2, +3, etc. 😀

    3. Dr. Coyne, I feel exactly the same way as Dr. Finfer, and as I have absolutely no expertise in science of any sort I doubt I could ever give much in teh way of constructive commenting. I do, however, possess a tremendous fascination for science, something that grows by the day due to scientists such as yourself and Professor Dawkins, as well as Professor Krauss and Dr. Tyson. I am in the process of reading WEIT, which makes the science of evolution comprehensible to a lay person such as myself. I will admit to loving the atheist side of your posts, though. I also enjoy the wildlife photos that are frequently posted, so many of which are fascinating. There are things I’m not a fan of on your site, but so what. It’s your site and I feel blessed to be able to enjoy as much of it as I do.

      I hope you continue posting on science. It’s a very special thing for many of us.

      1. Ken Elliott has expressed my thoughts perfectly. I came to this site originally as a result of your book (WEIT), because I love the science. I stay for both the science and the skepticism. I seldom comment because I seldom feel I can add to what has already been said; but I appreciate your articles tremendously, and I read virtually every one. I thank you very much for the tremendous quantity and quality of work you do here.

    4. This is largely how I feel. I’ve gained tremendous amounts of knowledge through reading the science posts here but I often feel that my opinion is not qualified enough to add anything constructive to the dialogue.

      1. This is me too. I always read the science posts but rarely comment because I just don’t know enough. I find them really interesting and I wouldn’t want you to stop.

        It’s a bit like the Reader’s photos, but at least there I feel qualified to at least say “wow”, so I make a point of doing so from time to time, so they keep coming. When it comes to science, I feel just saying “wow” is a bit of a waste and I don’t want people subscribing to comments to have their in boxes inundated with me being amazed.

        Most of us probably came here because of your book, so that means we’re interested in such topics. And I know and appreciate how much harder it is to write that kind of deeply researched article too. Again, please don’t stop.

    5. I think this is accurate for many readers Jerry. It is for me.

      In my case I would add that you have mentioned in science posts more than once something to the effect that “we” (commentors) should take care that “our” rationalizations are grounded in some evidence and not merely “just so stories.”

      I don’t mention that as criticism! On the contrary I think that is proper and exactly as it should be. I mention it only to say that I try to keep that in mind whenever I am thinking of commenting on your wonderful site, especially on the science posts. And given my lack of expertise in biology . . .

      Please do not be dispirited, and please do not stop with the science posts. I consider them a valuable resource, not only for my self, but for my kids as well. I typically sit down with my kids and go through your science posts with them, and they enjoy them too. I can’t think of a better way to expose them to actual real-life scientific thinking and methods without all of the baggage and inaccuracies so often attached to the science education they experience in school and other public venues. Not to mention the interesting subject matters.

      Full disclosure; The cat posts and readers wildlife pics are my kids favorites.

    6. Add another to the list of “reads the science posts but does not comment.”

      I read them and find them very interesting.
      I love the amount of learning that happens when I visit this site. I just rarely feel compelled to comment on the science posts because it’s sort of a one-way street: I’m the one doing the learning, I have no expertise or informative opinion to send the other way, so I just absorb the posts.

      I don’t mean that, for instance, I’m just ignorant about science subjects. As an interested layman I’ve had enough interest in science to be able to for instance argue in detail the case for evolution with evolution-deniers. But the very fact I would speak up that way happens when I’m confronted with people clearly ignorant about such topics, and so I can “help out.”
      That just isn’t the case when reading science explained by a professional scientist, where the roles are reversed and I’m the one doing the learning. So, I shut up and learn.

    7. Same here. Not a frequent commenter anyway but I can put some effort to comment on the science posts without sounding too ignorant!

    8. Just wanted to chime in also and agree with the other commentators. I really enjoy the science articles but like most of the other commentators I am not qualified to add anything to the conversation other than “Wow that’s really cool”. 🙂

      So please keep up all the good work you do!

    9. Same here. I enjoy this site for its refreshing variety of topics. First of all, I’m interested in science followed by religion in some distance, although the latter drives me to comment more often. Maybe I should work on that. 🙂

      I only read a handful of blogs regularly, let alone commenting on them. Here I do both, that sure shows something about the impact this one has on me.

      Thank you for sharing all that knowledge and your thoughts with us, Professor Coyne. o/

    11. I share this sentiment, I hope Coyne feels better seeing everyone concurring.
      Perhaps our good host of this website could see the silver lining in how many of his active readers are so intellectually rigorous, honest and humble, that they dare not voice their opinions on areas outside their expertise? 🙂

    12. Same here. Add to that, with a more in depth science post, it may make me wander off and read more about the topic, but writing a comment, as with the post itself, would require more research and energy to make the comment meaningful. It’s much easier to comment on religion since it doesn’t take a considerable level of expertise to add to the conversation, lest we concede that silly argument to the Sophisticated Theologians.

    14. Same here.

      I read them, but I am a journalist by trade so I am never entirely sure if what I would have to say has value.

    15. What’s the point of commenting about a
      science factual post unless it contains something that upsets previous scientific conclusions? There’s way too much empty commentary on the internet.
      The point is not how many comment but how many read these posts. If you’re really interested in feedback WordPress may have a way of registering clicks on specific posts. If so, that would be a much better way of judging the interest of readers.

      1. I can only repeat what has been said above. I love reading the science posts but very rarely post on them because I’m not knowledgeable enough. Whatever you do, please don’t stop posting them.

      2. Counting clicks doesn’t give the whole story. Those of us who receive the posts by email don’t always click through to this bl— website, even when we have found a post fascinating. (OTOH, I rarely read Hili. Chacun à son chat.)

        /@ / San Diego

  2. I read and enjoy all of the science posts, Jerry! They are by far my favourite part of your site.

    It is true that I rarely if ever comment. This is mostly because I don’t feel competent to say anything useful. I’m very much an amateur enthusiast rather than an active contributor to any of these fields.

    I would suggest that you shouldn’t confuse silence with apathy but perhaps I should comment more even if the comments are brief and banal?

  3. I read and enjoy the science posts! I rarely comment, however, as I well know my limitations in the field. I think of it as anti Dunning-Kruger–an attempt to be aware of what I don’t know. If I were to comment, it would mostly be “interesting!” and the like, but I can try to do that!

  4. Same here. I love the science posts and I learn a lot from them. But as an engineer, I have very little I feel I can contribute.

    Please don’t let the lack of comments stop you.

  5. Controversial subjects will always provoke more response than interesting but relatively esoteric technical subjects.

    Please don’t be dispirited!

    It would be interesting to compare page-visits that don’t involve a comment. Do science posts get fewer “reads” than others, or just fewer comments?

    1. I would add this…

      Most comments are reactions to other comments, not to the original post. The arguments that result can go on for quite a while and generate a whole lot of comments… to the point where Management sometimes steps in to slow the process down. Science posts can’t be expected to result in the same sort of exchanges. There isn’t as much for the educated lay-person to argue about.

    2. I’d also add that looking at the number of views for individual posts could be misleading as well. This particular WordPress theme allows one to read entire posts on the home page, without clicking through to the individual page that includes comments, registering a “view” for that post. I often read posts this way, only clicking through if I have something to say.

          1. +3.

            I visit this site everyday, but it’s my first comment. I love the science posts but, as the others here, i don’t feel i have the knowledge on the subject to contribute with a comment. Keep them coming!

    3. Page reads would probably be higher on the more
      controversial pages. Some people don’t subscribe, they re-load the page to see if a debate is heating up, or if someone posted a reply to their post. Personally, I prefer that method to subscribing. I might be a minority, but I sure I’m not the only one. And that will skew the counts.

      1. I usually do that too. When I know a subject is going to be controversial, I don’t want hundreds of e-mails, I’d rather just go back periodically and see what else people are saying.

      2. Yes, I keep a “tab” open permanently on WEIT, and refresh it regularly to see what’s new. I tend to comment to make silly “jokes”, or join in on a jokey thread, and only very occasionally feel able to add something from my own small pool of knowledge.

        Nonetheless (lovely word) I read every word of the science posts, indeed all posts, and continually marvel that Prof. Ceiling Cat finds the time to write all these well-constructed posts, fulfil research and teaching duties, write scholarly tomes and respond politely to direct emails.

        Keep up the good work, and try to get more than three hours sleep each night.

    4. I second what many are saying here, that I don’t post in science threads because I have nothing to add because I’m not a scientist – they aren’t opinion threads where everybody has something to say.

      ” I could turn it into the Daily Mail of atheist sites, but there’s already an entire blog network devoted to drama, rage, and recrimination.”

      If that is what you abhor, then please don’t try to judge your success the way they judge theirs, by raw page views and post counts! Those knid of places are obsessed with clicks, and write about dog whistle topics that get people ranting. Your site isn’t about getting people angry for clicks sake. Your posts are thoughtful, curated, well researched and varied. You are not TMZ, Buzzfeed, Daily Mail or Drama Blog Network.

      I’d also add that when a post is really well written there may be nothing for any one to add in the form of comments. Please don’t use comments as you sole metric.

      1. I’ll second that.

        Religion or kittehs or toilet paper orientation or music are easy to write a quick comment on. So people do. Much harder to make an intelligent comment about some fairly esoteric bit of science, and there’s always the risk of saying something technically silly.

        I think though that if Jerry likes to write about science topics, and they get 40 comments, that’s great. Makes it worth while. The fact that a post on cute kittehs gets 200 is neither here nor there. Anybody can make posts like that, it’d hardly be worth maintaining a website for. I don’t think Jerry needs the clicks, this website isn’t a commercial venture.

        So – err, Jerry keep writing about stuff that interests you and don’t worry too much about the statistics.

  6. I too enjoy the science posts. However, my last biology course was on the order of 40 years ago. Hence the only comment I can make is “wow, that’s cool; I am going to link to that on my bl*g”; hence I don’t bother to comment.

    I frequently leave a “like” though.

    Note: I came to your website because of of WEIT.

    2. Me too. As a (now very ex-) scientist I have tried to keep up with developments in science most of my life. Teh interwebs have made this much easier; and your site is one of the most informative and compelling of all. In my view it is better than Richard Dawkins’ (a lot of the stuff there consists of links to original articles elsewhere) and Sean Carroll’s (fascinating, but sometimes presumes too much background knowledge). Since I found this site my education has come on in leaps and bounds, thanks entirely to you and your knowledgeable and accessible style (Greg’s and Matt’s). I would have said ‘thank you’ for each of the science articles if I had thought that such a comment would add anything. So please keep ’em coming, and take the ‘thank you’ as read!

      2. Jerry,
        Like Steve, I’m a long retired scientist. My field was muscle disease, ultrastructure and physiology. It’s only since I’ve retired that I’ve started reading about genetics and evolution. And I have personal subscriptions to Nature and Science to keep up on general science topics. I read this site daily, and often check it several times in a day. It’s virtually the only b*og I bother with. I love it, and I’ll try to remember to add some comment such as “wow!” to the science articles from now on!

  7. Please don’t be dispirited.
    I value the science posts.I am not in a position to understand in any detail without an expenditure of time equal to yours-so tend to keep them around as a resource or for further attempts to decipher or comparison.
    It seems to me the meat of the website and welcome relief after confused and confusing interchanges about more sexy(controversial) subjects.The wildlife photographs are sometimes kind of amazing-and appreciated but I do not know really what to do with them other than say’Wow”

  8. Sorry, Jerry. Speaking for myself, I do read them. I just don’t feel that I have an intelligent comment to make as a layman, other than “That’s interesting.” Ask my wife, though, how many times I tell her what Jerry wrote about today. I don’t see frankly how you can manage as much content as you do. Thanks.

  9. Like the readers above, I always read the science posts, but usually have nothing to add beyond, “Wow, that makes that much clearer.” As a writer myself, I feel remiss in not chiming in with thanks more often.

    1. It would be fun to create a post that’s just thanks to Jerry. Funny thing to think about, how could you go about doing something like that where all of us could create one big thank you. Short of something on another website or blog or a post like this where we simply respond to Jerry, I don’t see an easy way to do that.
      Will keep thinking though.

  11. Prof CC, the science posts are great and are the main reason why I’m a regular reader. Unfortunately I don’t have the expertise to comment, or rather comment intelligently. I spend a lot of time looking up information that I didn’t understand, but that’s not a bad thing. The readers beefs are a fun read like the hate mail in the FFRF paper and can be a nice distraction in an otherwise serious day, but they aren’t necessarily why I enjoy your website.

  13. Professor CC… I really enjoy reading the science posts and I find them fascinating. Like the people above, I don’t comment because I don’t have anything worth commenting! I am just in awe how my own degree subject has leapt on in the 30 odd years since I got my BSc in biochem/mol biology. Molecular biology is, to use the famous analogy in Evolution. its own Red Queen. You have to keep learning to stay in the same place! I am so so out of date in my own academic subject that I just know that I cannot add anything worthwhile to the topic.

    Apart from cats are wonderful and you have a superb not-a-blog!

    1. With bontired’s statement and for the very wee amount which my chiming – in is worth, I concur. My degrees are long outdated because of their forced non – use so that I believe with which to comment — my brain is of no worthy qualification anymore.

      I do discern and comprehend what lengths of time are expended by serious science writing as thus of yours, Dr Coyne, and wholly appreciate reading same. Too with such of one’s concerted expenditures, I totally understand re a person’s dispiritment thereof. Any longer — after the warring and the traumas, however, I myself am just not so, so disciplined as to research and to study up on my own — such subject matters.

      As stress relievers ( even if within commercials’ containments ), … … moooore kittens !

      Blue

  14. The science articles are interesting and I do read them but because of their factual nature, there is less room for subjective opinion. I tend not to comment on them because I feel I don’t really have anything to add. They’re great reading but less controversial so they don’t spark the comments. Keep them coming please.

      2. Hmmmm….not sure they apply. Maybe a good question for Jerry – da roolz make it clear you don’t want people telling you what subjects to post on/not post on. Does that also mean that you have no interest in your readers telling you what they are interestde in/not interested in? Or do you welcome feedback on that, just not in “don’t post on X” form?

        I do in fact scroll wheel over some posts (though not the science ones – I read those). I completely support you writing about whatever subject you feel like – and in general I think the breadth of topics makes your site a richer place to visit – but I think its both reasonable and unterstandable to say that not every subject you write about is a subject I want to read about. Does that sort of feedback interest you?

        1. I don’t mind readers telling me what particular posts they like, but not that I should post more of X and less of Y (as per Da Roolz). The reason I asked about the science question was out of curiosity, for I didn’t plan on curtailing science posting.

          Ergo, no need to say, “I like the science but I’m not keen on the cats”!

          1. In that case, scanning over the 250+ responses leads me to believe that most of your readers read the science posts, they just don’t comment on them.

            Even outside the “I’m not qualified” justification, it makes sense to me that a post where you are providing information is likely to garner less comments back compared to a post where you are arguing a specific philosophical, sociopolitical, or religious point. When you argue a point, that pretty much implies you are inviting a response. When you give information, not so much.

            Maybe you could do an experiment to see if that’s true. Take two basically similar posts and, with a week or two separation, pose one as you arguing a point and the other as factual, and see if the response rate differs. So just as an illustrative example, in one post you say “I think the best Rock n’ Roll song of all time is X. Discuss.” In another you say “Blah de blah magazine just came out with it’s top list of Rock n’ Roll songs, and they put X first.” Then see if the former more argumentative framing provokes more responses than the latter. 🙂

          2. Or better, do this with a science post. Find some point of possible dispute and take a side and invite discussion.

          3. That could be fun.
            Like so many others, I am less likely to comment on science posts (even if they touch on vertebrate systematics, behaviour or palaeontology where I’m not completely out of date or out of my field). There tends to be less argument going on generally, and fewer opprtunities for reactive humour (aka ‘dad jokes’).
            (I only recently realised that I’ve been doing dad jokes since I was in primary school)

  16. I read the cat genome post and even discussed it with my wife, I just didn’t have anything to add. On Science/technology posts about which I know more (for example: chemistry, physical science in general) I’m more likely to comment. About biology, I often learn more and say less.

    1. One more thing. I teach chemistry to Freshmen, upper division chem and other science majors (though not so much in the past few years), and chemistry grad students – with an occasional grad student from an allied field in the group. Only the Freshman classes have as many students in them as the number of comments on this post – and many, often most, of my Freshman students would rather not be in the class. Everyone here is here because they want to be, every time they come. That’s quite an accomplishment. Don’t be dispirited about it at all.

  17. I value them highly and use the material in my FB groups. Not interested in cats though!

    LINK TO CHRISTIAN RADIO STATION REDACTED BY MANAGEMENT; COMMENTER BANNED FOR SPAMMING.

  18. I love the science posts, even if I don’t always understand them. I took biology in high school in 1982, and a lot of modern genetics is unfamiliar to me.

    I don’t comment because I feel I have nothing useful to say.

  19. I confess I find that the philosophical posts are often more interesting. But that’s due to me having my own personal opinions on the subject which often differ from the ones presented, which is rarely the case with the science posts.
    The science articles are well written and interesting. I would miss them if you were to stop posting them.

  20. I will admit that I don’t read all the science posts.

    Stuff about the fossil record, insects, and molecular biology don’t interest me all the much.

    In contrast, I am fascinated by stuff on mammals. I loved the cat post, and read it more than once.

    But, whatever my interest level, it’s not my area of expertise, so I don’t comment because I don’t feel that I have anything intelligent to add to the thread.

    I would be happy to say thank you, though. L

  21. I don’t comment, because I don’t have anything constructive to add. I guess there are others who are the same. Please keep the science posts coming thanks.

  22. You may be misinterpreting the lack of response. The time, effort and detail of the science posts are obvious to me, and they occasionally make points that I missed when I read the original paper (we have similar interests). Furthermore, I realize the time it takes to provide background and context. Commenting on such a consistently excellent effort would lead to a listing of justifiable accolades, but that wouldn’t facilitate much in the way of discussion. However, it is your science posts that I share/repost most often. They are frequently better than the research news summaries that appear in Science, Nature, etc.

  23. The science posts here are my favourite among the diverse categories! I often don’t comment on the Internet in general, but I check every post on here and I’m always excited to get home, read a post then read the relevant paper if I want to know more.

    The science posts are the original reason for me finding the site, so I’d be disheartened if they stopped.

  24. When you discuss politics or atheism or religion, there is a lot to say, there is room for lots of opinions.

    Science posts are more simply informative. Helpful and enjoyable, but really usually less to say.

  25. Sorry, Professor. As a not-biologist, I find them very interesting and informative, but something I am not qualified to comment on. (I have very, very rarely commented on the other content as well–I am a big time lurker.) I am grateful for whatever you feel you have the time and energy to write about.

  26. I can assure you there are a lot of dispirited people, dispirited because they have little or no audience at all! Count the proverbial blessings and keep up the good work!

  27. Admit, I haven’t read, cause I felt I might need more time to read it. Eventually, I will read it.

    I would not like your site if you only have cat videos, that’s like, you have nothing special…. I can host a site like that….

    What make your site different is the brain behind it, I learn, I grow up here.

    You must believe, the essence of this site is appreciated, loved, followed by all the audience here. 🙂

  28. I’ll admit, I don’t read all the science posts, but some, yes I enjoy very much.
    It seems to me controversy and oppositions do stimulate the desire to express oneself, while the science typically does not. The former satisfies angst and frustration, the latter, curiosity.

  29. It is important to remember that those of us that are interested in the science posts may have a lot going on and I for one want to be able to read the post on cats and try to explain to my cats. It’s hard to get an interesting paper like that and just jump right in – which often requires the restacking some one else’s interesting paper. Don’t be dispirited – if not you than who? It has always been thus and I am appreciative of all your efforts.

    1. I’m now imagining cats all lined up listening to a human explain things with diagrams and a pointer stick. 😉

      2. NO, NO. WE NO DO NOT LIEK POINTR STICKZ! WE LUV LASR POINTERS. CAN WE PLZ HAS TEH RED DOTS?

        ~CHESSIE TEH RAILROAD KITTEH

        SENT VIA MAH DADZ COMPUTR

  30. In line with the comments above, I read and enjoy these posts but they are more technical in nature and outside of my professional area of expertise. Hence I tend not to comment (and yesterday I read the posts for the day on my phone while waiting four hours for a plane at Love Field, the phone is not an ideal comment tool – at least at my age!)

    Comments on a post don’t feel like the question answer session after a seminar. Lack of eye contact and immediate response may play a role there, but a direct question can aid discussion in a way that a comment does not. The relative silence from this end doesn’t appear to reflect a lack of interest.

  31. It is more”fun” to read the comments of the beefers. I read the cat genome story in several news media before you posted. I discussed the cat vs dog genome difference with friends over dinner last week. The idea that cats changed human behavior while humans changed dog DNA makes sense to us cat owners.
    Your article took some time to read and comprehend for a science “hobbiest” like myself but I gained more from it than the fun stuff .
    PS Our black cat Tommie passed away Sunday AM. He changed my behavior for the last 15 years>

  32. Like others have said, I love the science posts but as a non scientist any comments I might make would probably look like little more sycophantic nods of approval or “take that, you religious weirdos” barbs.

    Now I’m worried you’re going to shut down the site.

  33. I do read the science posts (all posts actually). They are usually beyond my knowledge/education and I have nothing to contribute.

    Maybe I, and some of us, should just say “great post, thank you Jerry/Matthew/Greg”.

    I don’t usually subscribe to them because I feel that the science is stated and I accept it and I do not care so much for what the commenters might say about it since there isn’t two sides to facts. 🙂

    1. Ha, ha–it’s beginning to sound as if everyone’s here for the arguments. 😀

      I like to subscribe to the science posts because interesting things often arise in the comments. There are a number of very savvy biologists amongst us, along with all the engineers & techies.

      Like most science presentations, it’s usually well worth your while to hang around for the Q & A!

  34. Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

    My point? If you stop writing about science because it doesn’t garner the attention of your other posts, the relatively smaller group who read/comment might not get what they need to change the world.

    Like most others here, I skim some science posts, ignore some and read some word for word, based on my own interests. But the fact you are here, doing this, using technology that didn’t exist until two decades ago, with messages that were rarely voiced before this generation, is something I invariably treasure.

    Jerry, I’m sure you don’t hear this enough: Thank You!

  35. Although I am not able to speak for everyone, I, personally, do read the science posts, and enjoy them immensely. I do not post to them, or to the non-science ones, because, frankly, I do not think I have anything of intelligence to contribute to the former, and have nothing to add to the latter.

    I do enjoy reading some of the comments from others, Diana MacPherson comes to mind.

    I admire you, and your positions on the religious obsessed world in which we live.

    In short, if you take enjoyment from the website, then please do not think the lack of comments means a lack of interest…at least from me.

    Lastly, thank you!

  36. Oh I need to mention I saved your blog on cat genome to reread later and fully digest as the info presented is important to me as all dna studies are. The beefs were delected after reading as it was easy to “swallow”.

  37. It would very likely be true that most of the loonytoon stuff comes from the religious items as well. Everyone has an opinion in that area and are fast to give it.

    The science takes more thought and effort and there are not many out here who could tell you much on these matters.

  38. For what it’s worth, I am 10x as likely to read the science posts as I am the political ones (although I do like them!). There are plenty of political/atheist blogs out there, but not many who can boil down the latest in evolutionary science with your skill.

  39. I mostly never comment on either science or atheist or readers’ beefs issues. Nevertheless, I always read the science posts, which I almost always find interesting, but don’t believe I have much to contribute by commenting. Please don’t stop doing these. I usually read the atheist issue posts and scan the readers’ beef posts. For me neither of these have the content value of the science posts. Atheism, per se, is pretty much non-belief in a supernatural being. Posts about surveys are interesting, but what’s left to say. some of the readers’ beefs are amazing, but for the most part lack content value. Best wishes. Ron

  40. I enjoy the science posts most of all – I’m not a scientist (…but I do believe!) and I find your discussions informative and enlightening. I will be disappointed if you cut ’em.

  41. I have to chime in here. I always read the technical posts – I like those best of all. Like most of the other people, I don’t comment because it’s outside my area of expertise, so about all I can add is “wow”. But I read them, and I really appreciate the effort it takes to write them.

    Don’t stop.

  42. Ditto. The above posts express my sentiments as well.

    The science posts, for me, are the most informative and educational, and I have little to add, except noise.

    I’m atheist, so your atheist posts serve to validate my confirmation bias; which I believe is derived from an adaptive evolutionary strategy to avoid wasting one’s time pursuing bullshit (metaphorically speaking).

  43. Lack of comments may reflect more the dearth of interesting conclusions that typically emerge from comparative-genomic and dN/dS analyses.

    You would have received far more comments if the genomic analyses had identified the gene that enabled cats to domesticate humans.

    I ALWAYS read your science-posts carefully; much appreciated.

  44. I do run through them, but as someone who didn’t study science science past the age of 16 (as opposed to computer science which doesn’t count!) I don’t feel that I can comment.

  45. I guess most readers here are lay people. Anyone can chip in with an opinion about religion but science posts are different. Personally, I read them to be educated; it’s a one-way process.

    1. +1
      Oneway process indeed. I sometimes feel I’m receiving an education for free and Prof CC gets nothing in return.
      My personal thanks and donations to DWB and FFRF are all I have to offer.

  46. I read WEIT regularly. I am a scientist and an atheist, although I have commented only a handful of times over the last few years. I wonder if the quantity of comments a post receives is a valid barometer by which to gauge the “success” of a post? I suspect not. I would wager that a much larger proportion of your readership possess an informed opinion about atheism and religion, than science. This is not to say that the readers are not interested in science, but, as previous comments suggest, perhaps most readers simply have nothing to add to science-based posts. Perhaps your expectations are unrealistic?

  47. I almost never leave comments in science posts. It is easy to comment about my own personal experience of being an unabashed atheist in a religious culture but because of my limited layman knowledge of science I just do not feel that I have anything of substance to add in a science post other than saying I am thrilled to see it and would love to see more.

  48. I was happy to see that you posted something related to that study–I was one who shared a link to another post about it–but just haven’t had a chance to read it. I don’t always read the most interesting posts after a long work day, I save them to read later in the week when I have the time to give them my full attention. And even if people don’t comment, not many would be here if we weren’t learning new things from you. Non-scientists may be reluctant to comment on a scientific post for fear of adding nothing useful to the discussion. This does not mean it is any less appreciated.

  49. Hi Jerry,

    I read almost every science post; because they are very very good. You and Matthew and Greg do a great job explaining the science.

    But, usually, when I’m done, I really don;t have anything to say. I don’t know the subject well enough to say anything beyond: Cool thanks for posting that.

    I’ll try to remember to do that more often! 🙂

  50. I have just finished reading yesterday’s essay-review of the cat genome study (having been out of town most of Sunday). I found it fascinating and learned quite a lot.

    I do read almost every science essay you write, Prof. Coyne, but like Paul Davies (just above)I’m doing so to be educated.

    That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t say thanks! And I will remember to do so hereafter.

  51. I rarely comment, mainly due to lack of expertise, but I read the vast majority of your posts and enjoy them very much and learn a lot. WEIT is my favorite science blog, and I hope you keep doing it for a long time to come!

  52. I think it has more to do with science posts not generating as much conversation, because the majority of us are presumably not scientists, and so my reaction to most science posts is, “interesting!”. I don’t have the background necessary to challenge the scientific topics you write about, or to add anything worthwhile; I just absorb it.

    And of course, I’m not ashamed to admit that not all the scientific topics you write about, necessarily pique my interest in the first place. I’m not the evolutionary biologist, after all. 😀

    The religion/atheism topic is far more provocative, far more political in nature (unfortunately), and it’s a topic that many people have views about. I can tell you I originally found this website because of your writing on atheism, not your writing on biology. Of course, my finding this place subsequently led to me buying your book.

  53. I’m reminded of the quote: “Talking about music is like dancing about architecture.”

    My lack of expertise keeps me off the dance floor, but I still enjoy looking at the buildings.

  54. My favourite posts often receive the fewest comments. I love the wildlife photography, I love the Hili dialogues but I most especially love the science posts. It is then that your talent as a communicator of complex ideas in an understandable form comes most into play. Thank-you so much for the four hours you spent selflessly improving my understanding of the world.

    1. What Pete T. said. Also love the food reviews, even though I don’t cook or even like eating out. I read everything. I post some of those columns to my facebook page, as I know a couple of folk who a background to understand and appreciate them.

      Things that benefit from individual opinions, I am happy to give, but science? My “Wow!” or “I didn’t not know that!” add nothing.

  56. I read the science posts and enjoy them. I rarely, if ever, have anything intelligent to contribute so I don’t comment often on any posts. I don’t want to dumb down the level of discourse on your website.

  57. Jerry, most of the feelings here are mine, too. Your science writing is world-class and it is so hard to find anyone who can write about science in a way that helps those of us who are not scientists or mathematicians and yet find both areas endlessly fascinating. I will do my level best to take the time to read your science writing here on this blog and then see if there is anything to say–if there is, you will hear it! Meanwhile, as so many others have said, thank you in spades for all that you share with us here, science, politics, non-belief, philosophy, the whole shebang. P.S. Although I’m a corporate pilot, my absolute favorite course in college was biology. Some people are puzzled when I tell them that understanding aircraft systems is a lot like biology. But, just like in the body, aircraft have different systems that do different tasks, yet these systems (again, just like in the body) work together with and affect each other. You never really understand how these systems work alone and also together until one or more of them starts acting up! Then you see the real relationship among the systems. Just like biology!

  58. I echo others when they say you shouldn’t be dispirited. We, most of us, surely only comment when we think we have something constructive to add.

    I think the website would suffer for not having the pure science posts, which provide a change of tone and scene (also offered by the music, felid and boot ones too, incidentally).

    I can well understand that the science ones take some time to put together. I don’t know how you get time to do all the articles you do manage, since it takes me so long to put just one essay together, so I’m always in awe of your output.

    But yesterday I found out about the flehmen response, which I’ve observed during 50 years of owning cats and never known what it was. How great is that?! And I’ve lost count of the times I’ve linked to the sciencey stuff to inform friends of issues in evolutionary biology. Just last week a mate was wondering about group selection and I could point to your many articles on the subject.

    Invaluable.

  59. Please add my voice to chorus of comments above. I look forward to the science summaries and certainly appreciate how much time and effort goes into those reviews. I rarely comment on ANY post, largely because I feel I have nothing constructive to offer. So many of your readers are bright, well-informed, and have a way with words that far surpass my composition skills. My meager offerings seem unnecessary. Perhaps site hits would be the better metric than comments, as I suspect there are many of us (i.e. lurkers) hanging out. Thanks for all you do, Jerry.

  60. Now you have good evidence that emotional posts gather a lot more answer, whatever the content 😀 (I tested my hypothesis, the Robin Williams posts got 150 comments overall).
    So cheer up! And if you want more comment, just put more emotions in your science posts.

    And I do like your science posts as well, commenters are not a significative part of your readership anyway.

  61. Of course I read EVERY post on WEIT, and I’m specially happy to read scientific ones – even if I rarely comment. I’m not exceedingly fluent in english and nothing is more boring than to have to look at the dictionnary every second sentence to find the correct wording… thus it’s easier for me to shortly (and rarely) comment reader’s wildlife photos than to discuss cat’s genomics. In this case I downloaded the original paper (through my University access) and I’ll read it. I would have missed it without your post.

  62. I’m sorry. I read and enjoyed the piece about cat genetics, however I skipped the reader beefs because they’re kind of disturbing to me. I’ll have to find a cute picture of Orson as an apology.

  63. Having read the book I came to accept evolution by natural selection as fact and (a few weeks later) deconverted. Mission accomplished. The site is excellent and I read every single post, although some of the biological content stretches my brain.

    Please do not be dispirited. Our knowledge increases everyday, and although it may be some time before someone like me can comment on a scientific paper on genetics, I can confidently say I come out richer for the reading.

  64. The lack of comments on science posts, leads me to wonder if people even read them, or read them but have nothing to say, or just skip them as seeming “too hard” (I, as well as Matthew and Greg) strive to make them comprehensible to science-interested readers).

    I read them. But as many other posters have said, I feel that I am either unqualified or out of my depth to comment on one.

  65. I’m so sorry you are feeling down. I love your blog overall. I do skip some posts, but never the science stuff!! The only two reasons why I don’t comment is that I’m not in the habit of doing so and that I use a feed reader that doesn’t allow comments. I’ll try to comment, specially in the science posts. You are doing a great job (not that you need to read that from me).

  66. I read all the science and religion posts cover to cover (not so much Hili dialogues). Often I have something to say on the religion. The science – that is why I came here in the first place — I learn a lot, but am really not informed enough to even ask questions, let alone comment. I also read Sean Carroll’s blog and don’t comment for the same reasons.

    1. Lowen, we are on the same page (pun not intended)–I also read Sean Carroll’s blog and love it, even though some of the science is too far beyond me to make a thoughtful comment about it. Yet it draws me because you never know what you might learn and because Sean, like Jerry, is highly knowledgeable and also a superb writer, often saying in a sentence or two what others take several paragraphs to say.

  67. I too am a lurker who finds your posts on current evolutionary topics very useful and entertaining, even if I don’t comment often (or very substantively). As a population geneticist, these types of posts are what drew me to your site in the first place. In my case, they are both a professional service and personal pleasure to read. Please keep it up – clearly many of us are cryptically enjoying your efforts.

    1. I too was a lurker (and still mostly lurk), and am still appalled that i even have the gall sometimes to comment. Just a simple geneticist (retired), with few publications, taught at a small midwestern college; but the pleasure and value obtained from the science posts are inestimable, and (one can hope) contributed significantly to the education of my students.

  69. I read all of your posts in my email every day. Since I am not a scientist, I have very little to say on the sciences posts, and I am an infrequent commenter. I would miss them.

  70. I ESPECIALLY appreciate the science posts. These are exactly the posts that I am most likely to share with my daughters. Yesterday, in fact, I mentioned some of the cat genome results to my older daughter.

    You do such a good job summarizing the results and implications of the study that I rarely have questions, and I feel less inclined to make speculative comments on the science posts, especially when the answer is clearly ‘more data’.

  71. Dear Dr. Coyne,
    Please do not ever give up on the science posts. They are what i look forward to and they are beautiful. I don’t respond to them because i wouldn’t know what to say out of ignorance.

    Saying that i will show my ignorance and ask about the facts that felids have less problem with fat. Ever since being diagnosed with celiac disease i have been studying the paleo diet and the scientists who write about the evolution of humans and agriculture. My diet for the past two plus years has been entirely protein and greens with a large increase in fats. My body chemistry has gone to extremely healthy and i’ve never felt better in my life. For example i have gone from almost unable to walk at all to being able to walk four miles a day. I would be very interested in what you, as an evolutionary scientist, and the other scientists have to say about this. Because like any good “wannabe” scientist i would like more information and not just from those who sell “paleo” product.

    Thank you.

  72. I happily read every word of every post you write. I’m not a scientist, but I love being informed about scientific matters. I don’t comment because I’m listening and doing my best to absorb the information. Please don’t stop teaching!

    1. Me too. I landed here for the wildlife photos and was thrilled to find the science. Since the last science course I took was freshman level in the mid-60s, I’m clearly not qualified to comment, but your science posts bring some much appreciated mental exercise and, sometimes, even understanding.

      BTW, I subscribe via email, so the stats probably don’t show that I’m reading your posts. Please keep them coming.

  73. FWIW I always read the science posts and only sometimes read the other posts. I enjoy reader’s photo and especially like comments about how natural history ties in with evolutionary ideas. I enjoy posts airing debates within biology and I think they do a real service. The recent post about the Dawkins/Wilson flap is a good example. Maria Popova of Brain Pickings has written and talked about the challenge to staying true to your goals and not posting clickbait for numbers. I write a blog (My Selfish Gene) about mostly biology and health and it can be hard keep from low hanging fruit (Top Ten Hottest Babes in Research!). You have a different circumstance , though, writing for education and enjoyment with plenty of other good and impotant things to do.

  74. As a once-aspiring biologist who drank his way out of college after a single quarter some 36 years ago, I’m not qualified to comment on any of the science posts, but I do read them and glean from them what I can. Your efforts are not in vain, for they give people like myself access to more complex scientific ideas. Please keep them coming. Thanks!

  75. I enjoy the science so much, but don’t feel qualified to comment. I read almost all your blogs with delight, mind-filling enjoyment and I feel that you are helping to preserve my old brain cells. I can just feel the neural pathways snapping when I read Jerry Coyne and friends! The nature photos, the animals, birds, the philosophy, ATHEISM, travels, CATS, and much more are inspiring. And comforting: With a world so full of woe,aberrant humans, to have WEIT available gives one hope.

  77. As a lay-person with an interest in all (well, most) things science, I’d feel way out of my depth commenting on your science posts, almost all of which I read with great interest and pleasure. Please don’t feel dispirited. I and, I’m sure, many other readers would be even more dispirited if you stopped!

    The few times I’ve thought about leaving a comment on a science post, I’ve wanted to ask a question about something I didn’t quite get or info I felt was missing, but then I didn’t want to make a fool of myself. I will try to be less reserved in the future.

  78. I thought this was one of the most interesting posts and because it was ‘hard science’ I saved it and re-read it a few times and forwarded it to several friends. I usually don’t do that with the atheist posts, though I do enjoy those as well. Perhaps, readers generally have less questions or personal issues with the hard science information?

  79. I don’t comment unless I think I have something to add. The comments are already high quality. Saying “I like this” also adds nothing. Therefore, fewer comments does not measure reader involvement. Too bad WordPress do not measure how much folks are reading/enjoying an article via a LIKE button or a vote up/down system.

    1. I never “sub” to particular articles because I read them on the site along with whatever comments are there.

  80. The only posts I skip are the morning dialogues. The science posts are always informative. If I hold off commenting it’s only because there’s nothing to say other than “how interesting!” The atheism related blog posts are always the ones that touch more directly on my lived experience and therefore garner more responses.

  81. I saw a cartoon earlier this week (and have comletely forgotten where): Man is sitting at a computer franticly typing.
    A voice outside the frame asks “Are you coming to bed, Dear? ”
    He answers “I can’t! Someone on the Internet is WRONG!”

    The flip side is that there is just isn’t much to say when someone on the Internet is completely and totally right. Even those who comment on your science posts are right. 🙂 I enjoy the science, except I again kick myself for not majoring in science so many eons ago. However, I usually don’t have much sensible to add.

    What I find most enjoyable about WEIT the website is the variety. Except for Hili and great nature photos, I never know what will on the page. However, I know I will learn something, be it about music, sports, cowboy boots, biology, or useful new vocabulary such as “micturate on the carpet.”

    Thanks for challenging my brain.

    1. P.S. It is only my respect for Da Roolz that prevents me from suggesting more science in the mix of posts. 🙂

  82. I am a medical doctor in South Africa and find your writing on scientific subjects as well as religion most fascinating and interesting. I have learned a lot and am amazed in the amount of writing that you managed on a daily basis, and is also looking forward to your new book.
    So please Jerry keep it up!

  83. I don’t normally comment because the biology is sometimes over my head as a physics teacher. I do read the science posts because they are interesting.

    Keep up the good work. Please!

  84. I’ll reiterate what many others have stated above: your philosophical and/or opinion posts on general social topics are just more amenable to folks weighing in with their own perspective.

    BTW, you’ve noticed what many bloggers that try to live on click counts have learned: a raging comment section is good for the bottom line. And “factual/science” posts generally suck at igniting the rage (unless you let the whacko posts through).

    Few people have preconceived opinions (let alone a particular stake in the results) about recent evidence on the lineage of felines, so anything you describe on that topic will mostly be read with quiet interest.

    But there are a few science topics that will get things going. For example, something along the lines of EvoPsch (for or against: it doesn’t matter; but particularly if it involves difference in the sexes), inheritance of intelligence, racial differences in humans, nature/nurture, etc. That will get people commenting, and then returning again and again to read the responses. If you want to go that route.

  85. I, for one, enjoy the science posts more than anything else. However, I often do not feel qualified to comment on them, or there is simply nothing to comment about.

    So I remain silent.

  86. I agree with what’s being said here. Both the fact that in many of the large comment posts, the comments tend to be responses to other comments rather than the original topic, so it’s a bit of apples and oranges, and that while I really, really enjoy the science posts, I simply can’t think of a constructive comment to add that I feel would add value to the discussion.

    My discussion forum experience was that posts consisting of nothing more than “Great post” etc, were frowned upon as a waste of pixels, so I’ve avoided them, but if they would be helpful in demonstrating the value of the posts, I could certainly do so in future.

  88. I do read the science entries and enjoy them a good deal. They often make me aware of new discoveries or explain something I didn’t understand. Please continue. (This is my first comment on any blog.)Thank you!

  89. Jerry
    The science is the best part! I realized that what you are feeling is similar to what teaching is often like (university students). Very few students comment directly on whether they like the course and it is often very hard to figure this out from interactions in class. The student evaluations then tell the story. I think from all of your reader comments that number of comments tells you nothing about how much people enjoy or get out of a post.

  90. The science posts are my FAVORITE POSTS. I will read those twice, and paradoxically, (because i am not a scientist) i have little to add beyond questions that i can answer with a bit of googling.

  91. As a layman who tries to absorb the new and interesting, I find commenting on new material, which this certainly was for me, is just a bit arrogant. That is other than “great job explaining, Jerry” which need only be said once. Perhaps others also can be a humble student and absorb without sound? I imaging many folks were just appreciative readers. Don’t interpret the silence as boredom, it may be awe.

  92. Professor Coyne: Yours is the first, middle and last website I visit each day. As a retiree, an atheist and a science enthusiast, WEIT fulfills many of my interests and therefore is my number 1 go-to website. As most here have already stated, your science posts fulfill a curiosity that leaves most of us in reflective silence. Please imagine us with pleased grins as we leave your site.

  93. Just my vote: the main reason I came here was for the science – and cats. And now, I like the wildlife photos. I don’t comment very much since I do this during quick breaks at work. I guess I’m agreeing with every other post here, but I would like you to know how much we appreciate your (and Matthew’s) posts.

  94. Prof. CC, you’re teaching us and, though we may not comment, we’re “still learning”. One of your science posts might inspire someone to continue his/her education. Please don’t make us take a test though!

  95. All the reasons for the small comment count on technical sciency posts have been well covered here.
    Maybe we can boost the count next time by recruiting commenters (sic?) over at Youtube.

  96. I would like to see the stats regarding the science posts, philosophy, religion, wildlife & cats of course.. would i also be dispirited? Im guessing “yes”

    As an engineer, recovering catholic, concerned humanist / naturalist I am happy to admit i am unqualified to comment on your science, its hard enough to understand much less make a contributing comment. I guess everyone has a perspective to share on humanity…science is much more difficult.

    Please keep “not blogging” about science!!

    Sience Rules & Cats dont usually Drool (as much)

  97. I agree with the comments above, and would respectfully add that the issue of what we humans believe, the basis for those beliefs, and the actions that spring from those beliefs are every bit as important as the science on which “rational” beliefs rely. Your credence as a scientist, like Dawkins and Harris, is the foundation from which you write about beliefs, and you do it superbly well.

    Like so many of the commenters, I read the science bits, do my level best to understand them, often come up short, and certainly don’t feel qualified to comment on them.

    Please, please do not be dispirited. The full spectrum of your knowledge and views is what makes us wait eagerly for the next WEIT post.

    Thank you for ALL you do and share.

  98. As per other comments I read the science posts but am even less likely to comment on those than other types of post since I dont normally have anything useful to say on those them.
    Ironically I think it is the fact the three of you are doing a good job in making them comprehensible that reduces the number of comments since dont have to ask for clarification on various points.
    As others have mentioned as well the other posts get more comments because there is also more argument/discussion between commenters beneath the line which helps boost the comments and I suspect the page count as well.

    In terms of reading I spend more time on the science posts often sticking them to one side to read properly later as well as an initial skim.

  99. Please keep writing the science posts! It’s great to see scientists communicating effectively to the general audience. It’s still rare and special. As a scientist, and as one concerned with the general lack of knowledge on matters scientific, I find the frequency with which it is done poorly in the mainstream media dispiriting. The quality of the science writing is why I visit I and why I direct others to the site. I don’t comment much because – science! It keeps a body busy.

    Best regards – the work is appreciated!

    Steve

  100. If the post didn’t get as much attention as it deserved I think it was because of “cat”, not the science. I still plan to read it but most of the cat stuff gets filtered tbh.

Comments are closed.