I’ve long kvetched about the lack of comments on my science posts. I kvetch because a). many readers tell me they want more science, or read this site for its science, and b). the science posts are the hardest ones to write, as they involve reading a paper several times and then distilling the essence for nonscientists.
In response to my beefing, readers have assured me that they do read the science posts, but simply lack the professional expertise to comment.
But I’m not sure that’s the case, at least judging by the views that such posts get. Here, for instance, is a tally of views from my most recent science post:
See the eye at lower left? 249 TOTAL views. That’s pretty pathetic given that other recent posts have been viewed dozens or hundreds of times more.
I’m not asking for reassurance here; I don’t want any. But I am contemplating getting rid of my posts about new results in evolutionary biology—unless people start reading them.
Hi Jerry,
I read all of your science posts and I’m one of those people who enjoys them but rarely comments due to lack of competence. I almost always read them using the emails that are distributed though. I don’t think this is reflected in the page views.
I’m very grateful for all the science material!!
John.
Yes. An easy fix, if page-views are what you care about, is to change the emails to only include the first paragraph. Many other bloggers do this and thus I visit their sites to read interesting articles. With WEIT, I basically ONLY come to the site itself to comment – so no wonder the comments and views appear to be correlated. I also delete a lot of the non-science stuff without reading, as much of it is depressing and repetitive.
@Jerry, it’s your site, so you should blog about what you want to write about and to hell with the pageviews. (It saddens me a lot that you imply the worth of a post – on the internet of all places – is measured by views. Don’t join Buzzfeed et al.)
If you do drop the science, please consider rebranding your site. As an evolutionary biologist, I would feel unhappy about a site called “Why Evolution is True” that is explicitly tied to on of the best books on the evidence for evolution to then have nothing about evolution on the site. Perhaps you can move all your science posts to a new “Why Evolution is True” site and call this one “Faith vs. Fact”, which dominates most of the posts and comments, I think.
I’m already sometimes hesitant to point some of my religious friends to your science posts, because I know that much of the rest of the content will just reinforce the lies they have been spun that evolution is ideologically driven, not evidence-based. (And I agree with your ideology, on the whole.)
To clarify that last paragraph: not the posts themselves, as they would not read them – just their presence of more (anti-)religion posts than evolution ones.
I concur. I doubt it records views from the main page, where I can read the entire article. I am no scientist, and often have precious little to add to said conversations. I very much agree with Rich – if you use the “continued reading” bar, readers would have to click to read the rest, and you would be a more accurate view of how many are reading them. I hope you don’t give up on them. I learn a lot, but am not at a level where I can add much to them myself.
That’s what I’m wondering: Does your count of views include those of us who read the emails only? I read almost every email and particularly enjoy the science ones and the readers’ photos. Please don’t cut back on them!
I mostly read this site on its main page; I don’t always go to the comments after reading an entry. That would probably mean that my viewing/reading of a science post does not get logged as a view for that particular post.
I think that’s what happens….I read almost every word in all of the posts, and sometimes the comments. But I’m only competent, (barely) to comment on music posts.
My favorite part is when I have to look up new words. This site is good for my vocabulary.
I have the Google Dictionary extension in Chrome. All I need to do is double-click a word for definition/translation. Ctrl-select for a phrase.
Yes, same here.
Ive been doing the same thing. So are main views logged anywhere?
Same with me. In that particular post, I found the colorful reconstructions very beautiful. I thought that even if the arthropod had no such colors in reality, it is a pity that it is extinct.
Also a pity that the fossil itself is no more! Ablation techniques like this can provide exquisite 3-D reconstructions – but only once per fossil.
There are some spectacular 3-D reconstructions from nondestructive CAT scans, eg: Garwood et al Almost a spider: a 305-million-year-old fossil arachnid and spider origins. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2016; 283 (1827)
That was the question that I was about to ask – unless one specifically selects a given item (and I only do that when I want to forward it to someone) or its comments tag how does the computer know who has seen it? Even then seen and read are not the same thing. I really don’t have a fell for how well that number reflects actual interest. I did look at that article – initially because the 3D reconstructions looked so cool.
Similar issue here. I read the updates in an RSS reader, and only click to open an article’s page if I want to read the comments or write a comment, which is rarely the case for a science post, so although I read and enjoy the science articles my views likely don’t get counted.
Honestly I’m surprised you care so much about views, but of course it’s up to you what you want to write about.
I have a wordpress blog and I believe John Hamill is correct; views don’t get logged as such unless one clicks on the comments. Because all the posts here are viewable in their entirety via scrolling, the “views” are not completely reflective. If you really want an accurate account of “views” you need to make it so that only an introductory part of the text is visible. Although I personally would not enjoy the site as much if that were the case.
Hear! Hear! I very much dislike the style of
blogwebsite that makes you click through to read the posts. I much prefer to just read all the posts on the homepage, and then decide which ones to click through on to comment myself / read the comments. And as others have said, that’s a large part of the reason my views don’t get counted for all posts, since I don’t always click through to get to the comments.Add me as another person who reads the articles from the main page without clicking through to them individually. I guess this makes me an invisible reader.
Exactly. The views tally only reflects the number of people accessing the comment stream because the articles can be read on the home page.
I hardly ever read the comments here, but usually read the posts. At Sandwalk, which is another blog I check daily, I almost always look at the comments to some extent, which I think is because there one has to click to continue and fully read most posts, but here they are primarily complete on the main page.
I always read them and sometimes go to the website. Pity you can’t get a counter working on the emails! Keep up the good work, we are all reading
I also number among this group.
If you’d accept a suggestion: write them if you feel like writing them. It’s one thing to write a science post because you think you should, another, because you think that discussing this or that scientific point will be fun.
Professor, I learn quitely from your science post. 🙂
Don’t give up, please. I rarely comment on articles ( not just here) but it doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate them.
Keep up the good work.
Regards
Mary
Maybe you should jazz up the title, clickbait style, like “This crazy alien-like creature drags its babies around like they were tin cans on a wedding car!”
Yes, I couldn’t quite picture them being dragged “like kites.” Also, is “O’Dactyl” truly someone’s surname, especially someone who’s a paleontologist? That seems like satire, especially on the heels of bagels…
Am I right in assuming that the View count doesn’t have any way of measuring people who read something you post, but don’t click the actual post name to be taken to the separate page for it?
I read lots of your science posts, but I will never click through to the specific page for the post, unless I either a) have to in order to see the entire post, or b) want to leave a comment.
I will also read many of your posts via the actual emails that get sent to my Inbox with the entire body of the post already in it. Does that somehow get counted towards total views?
Just have a suspicion that that number may not be reflective of total readership. And I also won’t deny that I’m always more jazzed when you write about atheism, etc. in general. I suspect that kind of writing will always appeal more than hard science overall.
Unless you’ve got a web cam, with eyeball-tracking software installed, calibrated, and operating, there is no way to tell where on the screen is being viewed. I’m not sure if the position in the page can be recorded – probably, but again, it would require add-on software.
Such things do exist. They’re used by advertisers to measure the “eye-candy” factor of particular adverts, and for some other purposes. I doubt you’d have it without knowing about it.
Whether there’s a WordPress code block for using such data, I don’t know. I suspect it’s a bit too high tech for WP’s target audience.
These days, I typically don’t click through the email notification unless I’m going to post. But I’m still reading most of the stuff, and it’s still the science posts that’re the best….
b&
Ditto.
You could always go the Buzzfeed route – “This new species of butterfly was discovered… AND YOU WON’T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT”
Seems to me I read all the science posts, but I might miss a few if traveling. I travel w/ a laptop but often have less time for surfing the WorldWideWait. I’m hoping you keep at it because I have little to comment (trained as a computational linguist), but learn when you write.
I read the science posts. But usually I read from my mail box since I subscribed so… No views.
I don’t care about cats though.
Same here. Always skip over the cat-related stuff for the most part.
That isn’t a criticism or complaint or anything though. It’s PCC’s website, and he’s obviously welcome to write about whatever he fancies. And I get this weird gut feeling that Prof. Coyne has a thing for cats. 🙂
I hate cats and I don’t read any of those posts. In fact, I wished he stopped posting cat pics.
The cat postings will continue until the morale improves !
I do that sometimes too. I know that I most definitely read that post, and went ‘aha!’ upon learning how shrimps keep their eggs snuggled up underbelly. I also chuckled at the kite analogy.
…ooops… Crayfish, not shrimps!
I read a lot of your science posts, but via email, so you’re not getting a tally for my view. Hopefully, you’re not deterred and continue with the science posts.
I know that you didn’t ask for reassurance – but I will offer one possible explanation for the lower science post views.
I will typically read all of the posts on your website from the main page, and won’t click on the actual post itself unless I intend to post a comment.
Some topics lend themselves to discussion more than others. For the science posts in particular there’s often not much to add, other than ‘that’s interesting!’.
So, for myself, it would look like I read far more of the religion/social commentary type posts than the sciences posts – even though I actually read them all.
Yes, agreed, though I start from an email subscription.
Rather than add yet another comment that is similar, I’ll just agree with this one.
I go to your home page and read from the beginning to the point where I last finished, which is almost never requires clicking “older posts”.
I only click on the individual posts when I want to read the comments or write a comment. I don’t know how the statistics are generated for views, so I won’t comment on that except to say this could be the problem.
I think a major issue simply lies in the fact that most people have no basic command of Latin and old Greek. Terms from both languages appear in evolutionary biology even more often than in other scientific languages, especially as to the names of species and their physiology. At least according to my experience, many people feel instantly intimidated by words they can only identify as ‘unknown to me’, despite the English language’s containing a plethora of both Latin and old Greek words.
Furthermore, evolutionary biology does not have the potential to create the kind of social media attention that other topics have. People like things of which everyone can have an opinion without any knowledge required. And the debate between religious evolution deniers and atheists has cooled down in comparison to a few years ago.
There is simply too much easy-to-read and easy-to-forget content on the internet – which is sad. I, for one, should appreciate your scientific articles’ continuation, yet it will, of course, remain your decision to be made in the end.
We (mostly) definitely “lack the professional expertise to comment”, but still enjoy the science. Actually, I enjoy the science the most.
And I learned a new word as a result of this post – “Lagerstätte”. I already new about the Burgess Shale, but didn’t know there was a word to describe such deposits.
So please don’t stop.
TLDR:To be honest I didn’t read that posts. I’d already read an article about it in my Google news feed. Since the title seemed to be just a rehash of what I’d already read I didn’t really see the point. If the title had been something like “Did the Silurian arthropod really drag its offspring around tethered to its body like kites?” I likely would have read it, as I do your science posts when they are debunking a mainstream article, or cover something the mainstream didn’t bother mentioning. If you’re seriously considering no longer posting science articles maybe you could simply stop posting those that are, or at least appear based on the title, to be little more than a rehash of an already covered article.
Before you think this might apply to non-science topics as well it doesn’t because I don’t necessarily see them in my feed. That being said this might be some people primary source for science, but given the low views that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I, too, read about it a day earlier. But I usually read everything posted and read it front to back.
Thanks, Jerry!
I mostly come for the science posts.
I think the view statistics are skewed because without commenting there is no need to open the post. This means that people who do not feel they can contribute by commenting are not counted.
Please, please, don’t stop! What will I translate for your Polish readers?! Your translated science articles have between two and five thousands readers. I haven’t translated your silurian anthropod piece yet but it is waiting to be translated over the weekend. Please, don’t disappoint your Polish admirers!
Even a cat enjoys science posts from time to time.
I admit I don’t read quite as many of the science posts. But the ones I do read are usually on topics I’m interested in and I really do enjoy them.
As a blog writer myself, I don’t just do it for the views (although that does sometimes drive the topic I write about). I also do it to as a reference for myself on subjects I work with regularly. I also use it as a means to not have to keep repeating myself on certain topics and can just refer people to the post I did. Not sure if either of those reasons apply to you anymore with the science posts you do, but just something to consider outside of page views.
My recommendation is this: Write the posts you feel like writing without relying on view-count.
I’ll read most of whatever it is that appears on WEIT, with the possible exception of some boot posts.
If you find it a pain to write science posts because they are harder to do I don’t think you should do them even though it will disappoint at least 250 of us. I’ll be disappointed but I will understand. WEIT should not be a burden to you.
I would like to 2nd everything GBJames wrote.
Especially, I would be very sorry to see the science posts go.
Is it possible to create a method to more accurately determine how many people read an article. As some have pointed out they read the main page which may not be counted.
Some sites will provide an introduction of the article and then require you to click on “read more…” which then takes you the article itself. Perhaps this may be the easiest way to more accurately track readers.
Designing “Read More” And “Continue Reading” Links
Cheers,
Markham
Link should be: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/designing-read-more-and-continue-reading-links/
WordPress article about this and ways to set it up: https://codex.wordpress.org/Customizing_the_Read_More
This is a good point. Regular readers might usually read the email, or read from a news reader or the main WEIT page, which wouldn’t (I think?) generate clicks/views.
Posts that bring in non-regulars will thus get proportionally more clicks than posts read primarily by regulars.
It would be an interesting experiment to add the “read more” tag to science posts, which forces people to click to read it, and so would give a more complete count.
Also, of course, on the more controversial posts, much of the click count will be people repeatedly clicking to read more comments (rather than being more views of the post).
Good point. And my inbox is *still* getting comments on the ‘whether Jesus really existed’ post…
cr
I read everything from the email. I only view the page to comment.
I think this is a good idea. That would give a more true reading of how many eyes are on a given post. The Comments click is less accurate.
I can see the whole article in my RSS reader including photographs so I only ever click through to the site if I want to make a comment and I almost never make comments on the science based articles, because I know I don’t know what I’m talking about in most cases.
I would be disappointed if the news feed changed so that I had to click through to the site but plenty of other sites that I read duo exactly that, so I wouldn’t complain.
Is there a “Like” button on the news feed, like there is in the emailed version? If so, clicking on that should do.
Fleet wood Mac says it best…,
DON’T STOP
If you wake up and don’t want to smile
If it take just a little while
Open your eyes and look at the day
You’ll see things in a different way
Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow
Don’t stop, it’ll soon be here
It’ll be even better than before,
Yesterday’s gone, yesterday’s gone
Why not think about times to come
And not about the things that you’ve done
If your life was bad to you
Just think what tomorrow will do
Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow
Don’t stop, it’ll soon be here
It’ll be, better than before,
Yesterday’s gone, yesterday’s gone
All I want is to see you smile
If it takes just a little while
I know you don’t believe that it’s true
I never meant any harm to you
Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow
Don’t stop, it’ll soon be here
It’ll be, better than before,
Yesterday’s gone, yesterday’s gone
🐱
Moar science, please.
Just reminded me of More Science High from Firesign Theater..( do I have that right?)
Yes you do. And their evil rival Communist Martyrs High, the denizens of which disassembled, boxed, labeled and secretly stored More Science on graduation day! Principal Poop failed to lead, so Porgie, Mudhead and Bottles to the rescue. . . until stopped by Porgie’s dad, the newly-elected Dog Killer of the town–’Son, I am the People now.’
Robert- youremember waaaay moar than I do. I never owned the albums but several friends did. I’m amazed the title even popped into my brain from 45 or so years ago…
I’m another one who reads the science articles in email messages rather than on the site. I actually prefer the science posts (they are why I subscribed, rather than the agnosticism content).[1]
And as your previous commenter said, I don’t believe my views are counted.
My degree is biology is decades old, now, and I haven’t made a living in the science for almost as long…reading your posts on science keeps certain parts of me current.
Some of it goes over my head–of course it does. It did even then.
1. This footnote removed as distracting and digressionary.
The information in your science posts reaches a broader audience than you may think. I teach a General Education course called Mind, Brain, and Evolution, and what I have learned from your posts often gets woven into class presentations/discussions.
*Please* keep making the science posts! I read every thing, but *only* on the main page. I rarely even look at any comments and never (well, almost never!) write them. So maybe I am not recorded in anywhere in the WEIT site statistics, but I consider myself a loyal and interested reader. You stats fail entirely to capture me.
I am sure I am not alone.
Thank you, Dr. Coyne, for all your efforts. Really.
I read most blog posts via email. I pay more attention to the science posts than anything else. I, too, am not qualified to comment, aside from something trite like, “I agree.” I learn a lot from sites like this, and greatly appreciate them.
Some of you haven’t been eating your vegetables again.
Keep it up and you’ll never grow up to hit the long ball.
Unless I’m going to reply or want to read the comments, I read the article in email. That may account for some of the lower views since many don’t feel competent enough to post or don’t have anything to add, they don’t go to the site.
Can you display only the preview for science articles or is it an all or nothing setting? It would be interesting to see if that makes a difference or not.
Putting a “fold” in the articles sounds like a good idea. I often only read them on the main page.
I do love the science posts. But in all honesty, I did not find this particular story very interesting. That should not be taken as a disinterest in science post in general. I’ll keep clicking on the ones I like.
This wasn’t a science post. It was about the apparent lack of views of science posts. It wasn’t meant to be interesting.
I imagine he was referring to the post about silurian arthropods not the post about insufficient interest in the science posts…
You deciding to no longer blog on science is the equivalent of Jascha Heifetz deciding hes going to no longer play the violin and just become a generic ‘entertainer’
I read (or skim) many of them but I don’t comment. I don’t think that they are a waste of time at all.
But I could see why it would seem that way, as lack of comments often does = lack of interest. Perhaps I could start posting my questions about these articles, even though pretty much all of them will come across as dumb to a professional scientist.
I know it is a bit of work, but it is also (I hope) a passion of yours. In any case, I suspect that 200+ recorded views (the actual # is indeterminate but higher) is probably rather good for posts at comparable sciencey web sites.
Jerry, speaking for myself, I read you for a variety of reasons. If I am at work, I, like Diana, read the articles in my email browser, which is set up to preview my messages. I started reading WEIT when I found out from Geth who you are. Although I am drawn to your atheism and cat-love, I have also read both your excellent books. Educationally, I am a Classicist, with an MA, and hate to regurgitate what you said here, I definitely lack the educational background to comment eloquently on a lot of scientific topics. But, I do read your posts and enjoy every aspect of WEIT.
As a Classicist, you should make sure Jerry gets his Latin binomials correct! 😉
Other people have already touched on this, but the ‘per post’ view only counts people who went to see the comments or left a comment.
People who just read the article are not counted.
For science posts it is to be expected that less people are inclined to comment or read the comments, than in the case of posts about more contentious issues.
If you really want the stats for ALL people reading individual posts, then you could consider using that ‘under the fold’ method where you publish a paragraph or two and then provide a link to the rest.
(Not something that I would prefer, but it IS an option)
As a recent Bio grad very much interested in ethology and evolution, I beg of you to reconsider. Do views really amount to enjoyment for you? Or does satisfaction in education the public about a topic you very dearly care about amount to more? I very much enjoy your posts Dr. Coyne.
Well, to be honest, yes, views do matter, because nobody wants to put in a lot of time doing something that nobody reads, ESPECIALLY if it’s an educational venture. It’s like giving a class that only one person signs up for. There is a correlation between views and the amount of education you’re imparting!
I do recognize the correlation and I also agree you shouldn’t put time and effort into things you feel are not worth the return. However, I hope you know that there is very much a dearth of scientific information that is made easily accessible to the public (via social media, new outlets, and other press) especially relative to new findings in evolution. You’ve created a platform here that makes it much more accessible and I, and I’m sure others, enjoy it.
A question asked often above is whether people who just read the post without looking at comments are counted in your totals. I suspect not. How would you feel if there were lots and lots of readers who just read the science posts on the main page? Would that be good enough?
This is me. I often read the science posts on the homepage and I don’t click on the post itself, because I don’t know enough about biology to post a sensible comment.
But I absolutely LOVE the science posts. Professor Coyne has the great ability to explain complex issues in terms a foreigner and layman like me can understand, without dumbing down. He is a great educator. This is one of the few websites that actually make me (and a lot of other people, I’m sure) smarter with each visit.
Please don’t stop posting about science, professor.
I read the emails of your science related posts, but seldom go to the website. Are those views counted?
Dear Prof. Ceiling Cat,
would you regard a lecture for “only” 249 people not worth giving?
Strange modern times, where anything not viewed by thousands is seen as a publishing desaster.
I’m enjoying your science posts and I often send their URLs to my friends.
That said, I concur with the others that you should just write the articles you like to write. We do best what we like doing.
Cheers from Germany
Wunold
I check in on google’s science section every day, so if it’s something I’ve already read about I probably won’t click if I’m busy. If I’m not busy I’ll click to see if you have something to add (or subtract!) from the news, but I usually don’t post.
And considering the quality of most of my posts, I’m not sure my input would be that stunning anyway!
Well I’m a thicky humanities grad who came to your blog after reading why evolution is true and i have subsequently dipped into the science posts. Remember the one especially about cuckoos which inspired me to read Nick Davies The Cuckoo a fantastic work of pop science. Also greatly enjoyed your summary of the evolution of the eye in both predators and their prey. So don’t give it up I’m sure I am not alone in being part of the audience who wants some sort of grounding in evolutionary theory but who has no formal scientific background. I assume that’s part of your rationale for writing?
I usually don’t click on the article per-se. But read almost all your posts. It is one of my best sources of science news for evolution and related topics. Please continue writing these.
Having just spent the thick end of an hour – maybe longer – on writing a post on this very topic to PCC(E)’s mailbox, it’s obvious that I just missed this post while I was away over the weekend.
This is a really fascinating find. In an attack of “small world syndrome”, I was on an oil rig with one of the authors when their first paper on the serial sectioning of these “Herefordshire Lagerstätte” beasties was published. He was absolutely BURSTING to tell someone, but had to respect the publication embargo. Then with 3 senior geologists (Mark, me and … Martin S. , IIRC) and 4 juniors on board, the only ones actually interested were Mark (the author) and I. Unsurprisingly, Martin S had left the company within 2 years.
Well, here’s the bulk of my mail to Jerry.
==== “Another fucking new phylum” =====
Paper at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/03/31/1600489113
It’s an arthropod, but a very not-normal one. Those large head appendages are reminiscent of the Anomalocarids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalocaris) but the thoracic appendages don’t. “Affinities uncertain”, as they say. There’s a cladogram (P4), but I don’t really know enough extant arthropods to really get where they’re placing it. The support values for the nodes are not wildly impressive. “Further Research Is Needed.”
And offspring, at various stages of development, in “packages” attached by these cords … that is … weird. I was about to say “utterly unique, in my knowledge”, but given the habits of some cheliciate arthropods (spiders, scorpions) of carrying around packages of eggs (spiders) and hatched young (scorpions) … then IF the attachments in this fossil are inanimate then it’s not entirely without precedent. But it is really weird.
Here’s a quote from the paper on that point “Tethering of capsule-like structures containing tiny individuals is consistent with a brooding strategy, albeit one with no exact parallel among living arthropods; it would have protected the juveniles from predation by keeping them close to the parent. Attachment by a stalk occurs in the embryos of freshwater crayfish (Astacida), for example, which are tethered to the adult (21, 22).”
The number of appendages on the juveniles varies from one to another, and differs from the adult. So the juveniles either develop at very different rates, or they are from different breeding events. That’s not common (in my limited arthropod knowledge).
People may ask why the fossils are being prepared by destructive serial sectioning. The “Herefordshire Lagerstätte” preserves it’s fossils in concretions which grew in the sediment soon after deposition, hence preserving the structure of the organism. but the carbonate is as hard as the fossil, so excavation is extremely hard (they tried!) and this led to them developing this computer-assisted serial sectioning technique. (I was actually working offshore with Mark Sutton when the first of this series of discoveries was in press and he was bursting to tell tales in the run up to the embargo expiring. that was 2001, IIRC, Keith appraisal wells.)
Oh, oh, oh!
You can print your own!
“VAXML models (36) consist of a series of STL- or PLY-format files describing morphology, together with an XML-based file providing metadata. They can be imported into any 3D graphics package that supports STL/PLY files or more conveniently can be viewed directly using the SPIERSview component of the freely available SPIERS software suite.”
IF I understand that correctly, STL is a common format for interchange of this sort of data, including specifically for 3-d printing. Alternatively, the Open-Source and Free (and free!) software Blender can be used to read the data set for yourself. Kewl !
Strangely, from the PNAS Early page, I can’t get the PDF, but I can get the SuppInfo. Sci-hub.io does it’s stuff though with http://sci-hub.io/http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/03/31/1600489113
There’s allegedly a movie at http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/04/01/1600489113.DCSupplemental/pnas.1600489113.sm01.mp4 but it’s not downloading for me at this time. It’ll probably be a “walk through” of the reconstruction.
“Another fucking new phylum” remembers the (apocryphal) comments of Simon Conway-Morris, ploughing through the Burgess Shale collection in the early 1970s. The story seems to upset SCM, but it’s part of his scientific legacy.
According the the cladogram, the fossil is inside the arthropod crown group (it’s closer to a lobster than to a spider, and anomalocaridids are right out) but outside the crown group of Mandibulata (equally close to a lobster and a millipede).
My guess is that the odd appendages between the antennae actually are mandibles. Since living mandibulates have both antennae and mandibles, this makes a good transitional form. Of course I could be wrong, having no access to the full paper.
Doesn’t the Sci-hub.io link work? Certainly works from here.
The anomalocaridid comment was on my first reading of the news. There are is more careful consideration of the types of head appendages, and their relative insertion order in the head – which would be a significant part of constructing the cladogram given.
fyi, that video shows a colorful static image of the critter being rotated. My browser also wouldn’t load it, but wget fetches the file readily.
wget, as you say, does the job. I should have thought of that myself. Doh!
Like many of the early commenters, I read most WEIT articles from the home page, which would show on your home page / archive stats rather than the page stats on WordPress, or so I believe.
As an experiment, could you set the website so that only the first few lines of the articles show? Then you would have a more reliable indicator — just a thought!
Me too.
Such a setting would also mean that a lot more recent posts would be listed on the homepage – a big plus if looking back for a post of a few days ago.
cr
I’m one of the Elite 249 … 🙂
I love the science posts. (And the noms, cats, boots, photos, politics, etc.)
For what it’s worth, I read almost all your posts (I hope I can be forgiven the sacrilege of skipping over some Hili dialogues), but I do so by reading the main page, not by clicking through to each individual entry.
So although I read your science posts with great enjoyment, I would not be counted among your individual post page views.
I would suppose that this is true for many other readers, as well.
Leslie
If you want a better idea of who reads the science posts, you might consider putting a fold into the article as it appears on the home page.
I can only give an honest answer. I am not from the biology field but started following your site some time ago and well after reading your book, Why Evolution Is True – maybe the best introduction to evolution out there. I know that many who following the site are in this field, others close to it or teach it.
Within the internet environment, maybe you are damned if you do and the same if not. You see less than two hundred looks on the main subject and yet over 200 comments on a political subject or religion. Everyone has an opinion on those issues but they do not on the science. Rarely are new findings in evolution controversial to the people like me, unless we hear it from you – someone who knows. What people who come to your site learn is wide in range and subject but they also learn eventually, when to keep the mouth shut and just learn. At least most of them.
I enjoy all the varied subjects covered on WEIT, including the science posts. I usually read the posts in email, often on the fly or at work, without going to the website to view comments. If I have time, I’ll return later to posts I think will have generated interesting comments from your wonderful readership. I would vote for more science!
Well I am another who doesn’t click through but does enjoy the science posts. I also forward many to my son who has a strong interest in science.
Maybe we silent, uncounted readers could start to click through the science posts to add to the count? I will!!
I read them, but don’t click over the comments section much of the time, as like many other readers I lack the expertise.
If I don’t go to the comments section, it probably doesn’t register on the web counter.
My scientific expertise is mainly in astronomy and a tad in chemistry. My only professional training is in computer science and math (plus a Bachelor’s in European History and a Masters in Religion and Ethics.)
As others have said – I read the evolutionary bio posts (just about every one!) directly in my rss feed. Please keep them coming.
FWIW, I’d say I read *almost* as many of the science posts as I do posts on other subjects. But I almost never comment on the science posts because, like others, I just take them in, think “that’s cool” and go on.
It’s like reading science articles anywhere else. I am not used to, nor do I feel the need, on reading a science article to add comment. It’s just interesting information.
Whereas other issues are essentially made for, or invite, comment and debate – e.g. discussions of religion, social/political issues, art, music, movie opinions – so it’s natural to add comments.
I’m adding my “liberal arts” voice to those who read and appreciate the science articles you post. I subscribe to various science “blogs” received via email and subscribe to a number of science magazines as I’m curious about almost everything. I had already read about this beastie, but not in the detail you provided. I am so grateful that you continue to
care enough to educate the masses. As with many other commenters on this particular issue, I do not usually comment on the science because I am not a scientist and don’t have the expertise or vocabulary to even ask reasonable questions. Frankly, I enjoy the diversity of the interests you share with us and would hope you continue to do so. I believe you’re not receiving a valid count on the science readers. But, it’s your site, your interests and your efforts. Whatever you choose to write about, I will read. Thank you.
As a mere shopkeeper I’m sadly not well enough qualified to comment on your science posts. That don’t mean I don’t read ’em all and learn something new every time. I also appreciate the wide range of subjects you cover, always with due seriousness or humour as appropriate. You must put a lot of time and effort into the entire WEIT site without knowing how well much of it is received. Hopefully the show of appreciation in this comment section will do a little to have you continue your good work.
Hi Jerry,
I always read your science posts, but mostly in the WEIT emails that I am subscribed to, so perhaps these don’t count as ‘views’ on your site (?) I enjoy reading them (and all the other subjects that you write about) so I hope that you continue to post them.
All the best and keep up the good work, Terry Platt (UK)
I read them, but I don’t click on them. All your articles are readable in their entirety from the main page.
I feel like I comment too much. Reading the science posts is extremely valuable, but omitting those posts would be unfortunate even if the low-views were not motivation enough.
There is a lot of science and it is hard to compete with all of it all of the time.
well it’s actually fun reading about the science posts but there’s not much jokes/comments one can make about the material…..so commenting isn’t as fun.
I read EVERY WEIT post
I do so directly in my RSS reader most of the time
I don’t think it shows in your views count
Keep the heavily researched science posts please
I read EVERY WEIT post
I do so directly in my RSS reader most of the time
I don’t think it shows in your views count
Keep the heavily researched science posts please Jerry
I don’t ever click on an article unless it is required or if I want the URL to send to someone or post on FB. Yet, I read your page literally every day during the week while I eat lunch. I merely just read the articles from the main page. Clicking on the article is not necessarily indicative of readership.
Long time lurker here. I enjoy the science posts and other posts. I click through the ‘find the…’ posts to confirm my perception. I click through the political posts to view the comments from other people to get a view of what other frequent visitors think.
For most of the cat/nature posts and science posts, I am not as interested in alternate views, and thus don’t click those most of the time.
If I am not alone, that would explain why a great science post gets a lot less views registered. But those are one of the main reasons I come here.
I was a biology major in college before I was seduced away by physics. I try to keep up with my first love, but that was over 30 years ago. The first time I commented on a different web site. I was attacked many times. Once burned, twice shy. I seldom comment now, but this web site seems nicer. I will try to input on science posts, if I can remember something worth saying. Also regarding appropriation, don’t forget the Jewish Egg cream. It was created in the old country – Brooklyn.
We’re nice here. You should comment on stuff!
As others have indicated, your view count is not accurate, nor can it ever be. That only indicates who loaded the post in its own window, which, in practice, is going to be almost exclusively people who either want to read or write comments.
So your “view” counter tells you, at most, that in addition to not many people commenting on your science posts, it’s also true that not many merely read comments on said science posts. That’s not a terribly surprising correlation.
Don’t be a bad scientist by drawing weighty conclusions from insufficient data.
Many of your posts I only ‘view’ in email, so you never get a hit count. I will endeavor to provide a hit for those thing I read so you’ll at least get a little better feedback.
I read 90+% of your science articles, but via an RSS aggregator. I don’t know if that bumps up your view count. This is the first time in … 6 months I’ve come to the site itself.
Dr Coyne, More Science Pleas.
I try to view every science article you post, and I learn a lot from them. Science posts may not generate the comments or views that stuff like cultural appropriation outrage does, and I know they are more work, but please keep posting the science. The science is the nourishment, the other stuff is the entertainment.
PS The Silurian arthropod fossil was fascinating.
My main interest in this site is to learn the latest developments in evolutionary biology although I do not read all that are posted. Please keep publishing them.
I enjoy your science posts, actually I read all your posts even if I don’t understand them.
I’d miss the science posts, but as someone who has written many documents that no one will ever read, I share your frustration.
Jerry – please don’t stop with posting science stories. Low comment volume does not mean low readership – I enjoy all of them, and often use some in my classes (with attribution of course!), but I usually don’t comment on them. So, what is your next story on? And thanks for posting these stories – they help us digest the tremendous volume of research that is put out there, which is a big service to all of us.
I was just checking your past posts on a particular science subject, the membracid treehoppers. One of those articles was, at the time, the most linked-to article on your whole website. So there!
Perhaps not every science article will have broad appeal, but many do.
I read the post. Quite interesting. I’m not likely to comment on it though.
Like many others, I read every post and enjoy pretty well all of them. I absolutely enjoy all the science posts without reservation. I seldom click on the comments so I guess my interest doesn’t get registered. I wish it did. Jerry, please don’t stop!
Jerry,
I personally love your evolutionary biology posts.They are informative as well as interesting. For my part they get many more views since I send each one to at least three biology professors as well as one Psych professor. The latter is an evangelical but I keep trying.
Brian
Ah, “The Life of Brian”. Keep trying with the Evangelical friend.
I really hope you keep posting the science stuff. They’re interesting. I learn things from them. Often anything I might say about them sounds useless, though sometimes I say something just to know I read it. Please keep posting on science.
Ditto to all the above, I usually read most of the posts in the email I receive, and only go to the actual page if there is an image or video, or if I want to see or add to comments. So your counts are not accurate.
I read all of your science posts and would be disappointed if you stopped them. Your blog posts are my primary source for news in the field of biology, and I especially like your posts about evolution and animal adaptation. You are correct about one thing, I fall in the group who doesn’t know enough to make a worthwhile comment on your science posts.
I read it! And I forwarded it to my dad, who loves anything Burgess Shale-like. I think there is something wrong with your counts.
Do those views count the feed itself? When I browse the website, I tend to read what I see on the main page, then only go into the thread to comment.
so if a subscriber reads a post in the email, does it get recording as a read? I’m thinking it doesn’t and there could be many reads you don’t know about. Of course I don’t know how many subscribers you have.
I come to this blog almost entirely for the science after reading JC’s book of the same name. I do enjoy the banter on religion and faith vs. science at this blog. Yet I have not read JC’s second book as of yet, even though I am a hardened anti-theist. I do plan on buying Faith vs. Fact in some form, paper or ebook, eventually. However, if the quality science posts declined at this site, as has been pointed out as being the case at the NY Times Science section, I will probably start falling back on my visitation. I hope that doesn’t happen.
The science articles are great. But what I find particularly valuable are when you take out after crackpot scientists such as the people you find at the Third Way of Evolution site.
And of course, if you drop the science posts and only have topical stuff, you really have to embrace that this is a blog, not (just) a website. (Let’s have more, interesting old science, please!)
I’m not sure about the way in which page views are tallied. Do you have to actually click on the article for it to register as a “view”? The only time I really ever click on a topic is when I’m about to comment, which is seldom. Usually, I just go to the website and read each article and scroll down to get to the earlier ones without clicking on anything. So now that I think of it, I may not actually be contributing to views even though I read this site daily.
But on a side note, I very much enjoy the evolution related posts. I also very much enjoy the “faith vs fact” posts. I hope you just keep doing what you’re doing.
If I may make a suggestion/request regarding evolution related posts, especially since they are harder to write as you mentioned, maybe focus more on evolution topics that laypeople can find tangible and useful?
For example, I thought it was one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution when I watched one of your lectures and you brought up the Lanugo or the human yolk sack, or the hind limb buds of dolphins. Those were interesting things that I wasn’t aware of.
I often wish you’d release sequels to “Why Evolution Is True” with additional information and examples from other animals that might be fascinating. Too much for one book for sure! It’s always nice having more information/ammunition when talking with creationists.
Thanks for everything you do and for keeping this excellent site up. Again, it’s a daily read for me!
I’m only here for the food pics and religion bashing. Science posts are way over my head. Some mornings I put on my underpants outside my trousers. Makes me feel like Superman. For a very brief moment.
I will be brutally honest. It’s not like the majority of the posts are about science anyway. Currently, the daily posts mostly are about
1. cats
2. some crazy religious person
3. some PC idiot
4. a victim of religious extremists
There are very few posts on science as far as I can tell, and they are mostly very technical. Let’s face it, thousands of people follow this blog and few or them are scientists and a very small number of them are biologists. So, most people skip those posts as soon as they see the title. I read some of them. Not all.
I am really disappointed and surprised to learn that Dr. Coyne cares this much about view count. We can just link these posts on reddit and get thousands of “clicks” everyday but not real readers. Is that really what you want?
Scientists wrote articles, books and did not publish them for decades for several reasons. Sometimes they published their work knowing that only a few people would read them. You write something not only for the audience at the moment, but also for the future and for yourself. The blog will stay here forever. People WILL read them maybe even in 3016. You have hundreds of scientific publications. Do you know how many times they were read? I am sure, it’s not many.
In the end, it’s your decision. But, as someone who writes a blog for 2.5 years and only get 5-10 “hits” a day, I have to say I am really disappointed by your decision.
+1
The science posts are a timeless resource. (Along with the wildlife and cat pictures!) The religion and politics is largely preaching to the converted, I suspect. I know which I would consider a better use of time, though both have their merits and rewards.
What’s your blog called?
It’s called “Scientia ac Labore”, and can be found at blogspot.
Agree!!!!
It may be true that the science posts are not the most popular ones on this site, but I don’t think that should be a reason to retire them. They interest a fair subsection of your regular readers including myself, and they offer a digestible resource for interested people in the future.
Your posts about the decline of the science section of the New York Times jump to mind, even though that was about a lack of general scientific findings against human relevant findings. One shouldn’t ditch something valuable to gain more regular readership in my opinion. Keep up the great posts!
Don’t stop! I’m confused, because I don’t have to click on titles of posts to see the entire post. I only click on the post if I’m going to comment. I just don’t comment much. This is the only place I ever comment at ALL, and I hardly ever comment. But I sure wouldn’t comment on a science post because I would have nothing intelligent to contribute to the discussion, that’s for sure. Please keep the science posts!
I generally read the articles through Feedly, which subscribes to the RSS feed. The entire article is published to the feed, as opposed to an excerpt. I don’t need to click through (i.e. load the web page) unless I want to read the comments. I would guess the page view numbers don’t reflect the number of people who may have read the article through a RSS reader, but I’m speculating here.
That said, your efforts are appreciated Professor. I may not understand everything in the heavier articles, but I like to think I learn something.
Write the posts that interest you, and ignore the page views.
That said, 249 views is probably quite good for a sciencey article on an ordinary website (i.e. not a mega-jumbo monster like Buzzfeed or Reddit). If you’re truly concerned that clickbaitish “You won’t believe what this special snowflake said” swamp the science, then don’t post the clickbait. [That was just a logical deduction, NOT an instruction to Prof CC!]
But I think the concern is false. The clickbaity or non-sciency ones are also an opportunity for commenters to make easy quick comments on, so they do. I don’t think that has any implications for the science posts.
Personally, if you only posted cats and ‘spot the nightjar’, I’d still come here. I don’t think you’re obliged to educate us unless you feel like it. But a fair proportion of the science ones are interesting and informative even to me.
cr
I read the articles on the main page. Rarely comment. Generally skip the cat stuff, but science is what I come here for . . . . every day.
You might stop posting on science? I hope not. And I did not know that I had to press some button to indicate that I have read some post.
I read everything on your website each day. I am not a biologist or evolutionary theorist and do not read the journals that you read. So you are an important source (along with Mayer and Cobb and others)of what is going on in those fields. Without your postings I would be much less informed. So do not stop or think that what you do is in some way undervalued. If you were to stop there would be one less very good site for science communication.
I view your site through my web browser and just scroll down. I doubt it would register if I don’t comment.
However, as I came to that science article , and as I scrolled past it looking for more on the regressive left, I remembered you have talked about this issue before and wondered if this one would fail to show interest too.
I did skim it however and planned to have a closer look.
I would not comment though, as, lie others have said, I have no significant knowledge in these areas.
I have consumed popularised science all my life.
I love it, and am the better for it.
Please don’t stop.
No.
Just no.
Science is the backbone (certainly for us vertebrates) of the blog.
It’s not a popularity contest is it?
Concur with the majority of comments above. Even as a PhD student in Biology I rarely have an urge to comment on the (fascinating) science posts but often go away and mentally digest them. Because of this lack of need to comment I will read them on the main page. As others have rightly noted, it’s the more contentious religious/social/political stuff that encourages direct comment, hence eyeballs!
Please don’t stop posting science. I love your science posts.
Reading your science posts requires more effort to read and reflect, so I often keep them for a later time when my I can give it the attention it deserves.
If I read them within Feedly, am I counted?
Anyway, this reminds me that my department was once told to delete a program for a double major in mathematics and computer science because it attracted very few students.
I love your science posts. I would just add that there isn’t a lot of interactivity in a science post so you may not get a whole lot of reaction. It’s not like I could dispute/confirm/debate what you say since I’m far from an expert. I imagine many are the same way and probably take your science related posts as informational.