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.
I’ll agree with most of what is said above. I’d say that I read almost all your science posts and frequently follow the links to the original paper if the topic is of interest to me. I’m not a big commenter on any of your articles and probably less so on the science posts, mostly for the reasons listed above. I have posted comments when you touch some evolutionary topic in my field (neuroscience) and sometimes ask a question if I don’t understand something. I might add that when I make a technical post about some neurosciency subject, no one ever replies, probably for the same reasons folks list above.
Hereafter, I will click through so that my interest is duly registered by the software demon.
I typically click on the title so I avoid the “comments screen” mismatch mentioned by several people above. But another difference is that if it’s an article I’m actively commenting on, I may visit it many times over several days. THe science posts, because I often don’t comment on them, I read once and that’s pretty much it. So if the website is logging the same address repetitively opening the same page as multiple ‘views’, then I think that may be another contributor.
Both of which problems should be ‘reassuring’ to you JAC, beacuse what it means is that the system is significantly over-counting the number of ‘unique human viewers’ on pages with many comments, while the science pages are undercounting them.
I read the science posts like I was in a lecture I’m their to listen/discover and learn. I read the comments to ‘hear’ what more learned readers offer up and perhaps then an ‘ah’ moment and add it to the life story of WEIT.
Do you know how many conversations and comments were generated out there, how many were in the room?
After reading the post and I could have commented the following,
How they achieved or the methods used to get the information on this particular subject was intriguing and the fact that this adaptation, behaviour is so ancient blew me away (it did)
Some things to me stand out like highlights whilst others, the cladogram, does not, but
I’m not the sole occupant of the room for a one on one so never mind and I get the gist of it.
I know I’m getting the benefit of someone who has dedicated a great deal of their life to science and as a lazy sod myself, get all the rewards of the above.
I also appreciate the accommodation of someone like myself on this site and the effort made to deliver an accessible laid out read for the general.. again, like me.
But all that said Professor(E) I think you could not have said it better than at the end of the closing paragraph,
The upshot: the paper doesn’t really produce new generalizations about life, but rather the discovery of a particular way of life that was completely surprising. There’s nothing wrong with such an anecdotal observations, for that’s the kind of thing—
“the multifarious and unexpected variety of life—that keeps our wonder alive.”
I think that is what it is all about and for now your commitment to engaging us is sorely needed and I don’t need to tell you or anyone else here, why.
Okay, the votes are in and it is unanimous. The science stays!
Your science post largely do not involve any controversy that would lead me to the comments page.
I read what I can, which is not as much as I would like, especially with regard to the science posts here. Still, I come back for more, and hope to back up for those set aside for later, because, PCC(E), your posts always teach me something.
If you happen to be taking requests,though, I’d love to read science posts regarding the evolution of bones. I love bones. Bones and endo-skeletons, and their biomechanics as well as biology, just thrill me.
Dr. Coyne- I know you haven’t asked for reassurance, but such blessing as I have to give, may I not give it anyway?
I love, love your science posts. I totally get it that it’s a huge amount of work on your part without much reader participation – other than appreciative reading – in return. I have no idea how to remedy this lack of parity. If you wrote less, my life would be the poorer for it.
I know this wouldn’t fly in marriage counseling, but I’m not sure what else to say…
In this case, as it turned out, I had read the material on another website first, and so didn’t click through to read your write-up. But I am VERY interested, in general, in the science posts.
BTW, I’m also very interested in the culture wars posts, and read them frequently (and, not that you asked, not at all interested in the moggies and Hili dialogs.)
Put me down as another person who loves the science articles, but probably isn’t counted since I usually read them from the main page. I also often discuss those articles with my kids, so this site has been part of their education for a while. I’d be sorry to see that stop.
If something has to go, I vote for the cat stuff. 😉
I am a construction worker.
I read your website (and several others) via RSS feeds.
I am often days (or even WEEKS) behind schedule, reading website posts.
Technical and scientific posts are EXACTLY what I am looking for in my RSS feed… but I can’t promise that I will have time to visit said website that same day, or that I will have time to comment… or that I will even understand the science behind the post in question… but I can promise that I will unsubscribe if you drop your science posts.
As I said, I am a blue-collar-guy, a hick, a redneck, a hillbilly, if you will… but I am a guy that looks forward to reading everything that PCC posts.
Please don’t give up on me.
I know that I am not the only person who visits this website, but I can’t imagine that I am the only one lacking a science education or performing manual labor for a living. I read a couple other science websites, but I rely on yours for my daily (even if I am a week-or-so behind) atheist/humanist news.
PCC,
If you have the ability to see my several previous comments, notice that they are all days/weeks after your initial postdate.
I was a stonemason before I went to uiversity aged 36, so I am with you! Though no internet then of course…
It’s the intellectual challenge, isn’t it? So many posts are over my head, too, but then that’s what I am looking for, when I read them.
I read you science posts eagerly and would miss them terribly if you stopped them.
I tend to read them in my email program, I wonder if that means that my read does not register as a visit on your site and so explains a reduced count.
Ah – that is what I do! (see below)
I think that most people do read those posts, what happens is that they do not go beyond the main page (or read them in their email clients). Due to lack of competence they are not going to comment and, therefore, are not very interested in reading other people opinions, so they do not click to the individual page of the post. This is reflected in the page views stats.
I often read posts as they get delivered to my email… longer posts I sometimes save or print!
🙁
I LOVE biology posts! The ones I am less likely to read fully are at weekends when I have not internet, or holidays, or those which concern US issues only rather than that are more internationally applicable.
But you should do what makes you happy!
I am an evolutionary biologist and I read your blog mainly because of your science posts. I even bear with all the cats just to make sure I don’t miss out. One of your blog posts played an important role in one of my latest publications: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.12803/abstract
I usually read your posts in my email client. It is faster that way and when I oocationally visit your page to have a closer look at a picture, the page design is a mess, at least in google chrome.
Don’t stop writing about science!
Best,
Maja
I read your science posts with great interest and often incorporate your thoughts and ideas about an article or a new discovery into my lectures. However, I rarely provide comments for any of you posts. Please continue your posts regarding science.
Add me to the list of people who rarely go off the front page. Perhaps if you want a better measure you could put introductions on the front page then link to the rest. Then people like me would have to click through and make a statistic.
It would be a pity to see an end to the science stuff. Increasingly I skip past anything other than the science.
And I’ll admit it – I think cats are overrated. D*gs even more so. See, I observe the etiquette.
I should point out that I rarely visit this site. I subscribe to your posts by e-mail, and I read the e-mails. I only come here if I want to comment.
I am sure I am not the only one. Your statistics may be skewed as a result.
I’ll reiterate one observation I think others have made: the site is configured to display the whole post on the main page. If people really do refrain from commenting on science posts, would they even click through? I don’t know how plausible the idea is that people read the science on the front page but dive into the comments on the society posts, but it is what many readers suggest they might be doing.
Have you considered only displaying the first few lines of an article on the first page? It is a very common website convention that I actually rather like, and it would collect the definitive data to know whether people are accurate about reporting their reading behavior. I’ve done this on my WordPress site in the past.
When reading WEIT, sometimes I just want scroll through the front page to determine what’s there to read before I spend my limited time in reading one or two. Having full articles on the main page makes that a tad less convenient, especially if I missed a day or two, and I have to click on the next page.
Another on the list of email readers. I’m a recent subscriber, been coming here about a year os so, read all your posts, though I do skim some of them. I have a degree in biology, concentrated on aguatics, but worked more in the industrial side of science. Your science posts and books are refreshing.
I read your science posts and enjoy them very much, but often don’t go on to the comments, unless what you have said seems likely to have resulted in an interesting discussion.
I question your reading of the numbers. Most views on most pages are not about your post; they are about the running series of comments, most of them boilerplate disdain directed at Republicans, Alabama, believers, etc. People post a comment and come back for replies and ripostes.
I think Draper’s suggestion of a fold is a useful one. Then you will see who actually reads the post. I think you can assume the science posts are carefully read by those who would go past the the fold. I question, based partly on my practice, if that is true of posts labelled “Republicans behaving badly” or other phatic posts.
I like the posts on evolution-woo such as group selection or epigenetics the most. I am plagued by intelligent people who think Darwinism is inadequate, and your precise discussions help clarify my thinking, to do battle.
I think there’s a very significant data point right here. Nearly 200 comments already in less than a day on this meta-science post, with overwhelming numbers indicating they very eagerly read the science posts via email or the front page (and thus aren’t included in the standard page count).
b&
I’ve an idea: Those of us who read and like the science posts — but don’t comment — could just hit the “like” button in our emails or on the webpage (right between the post and the comment section), so our appreciation registers.
David, welcome! It looks like you’re in. And, I admire your persistence, getting to this point.
So many comments! Apologies if this has already been said.
Assuming the count is based on how many people click on the headline to an article, you are not going to get accurate viewing figures.
Because you have the entire article on your ‘front page’, people have no reason to open any individual article unless they want to read the comments.
Maybe you could just publish the first paragraph or so of your articles on the front page, thus requiring the reader to have to click on the headline to get to the full story, to give an idea of how many people are interested enough to read the whole thing?
I have to admit that I don’t read all the science articles – but those I do I really appreciate and I have bookmarked some, and read some from the archives. I would not find such articles elsewhere.
I don’t comment much these days because usually they do not appear in the thread – frustrating.
a few thoughts in no particular order/significance/well-thought-out-ness/pre-reading every previous post/proofreading-ness/you get the idea
– because this website has become quite a singular one for me over the years – “idiosyncratic charm” and all – nothing like it anywhere.
* who is the audience for the category of posts – it appears there is a subset audience.
* is a science post supposed to be – and I would want it to be – like an Evolution Journal Club? I can see clear limits on this idea – there is no substitute for people chatting around the table. Maybe video chat – how about making the science posts into a video chat at a specific time? Getting the article to people in advance? this sounds like an interesting idea to me, perhaps completely unique to the public sphere anyways…
* posts are permanent – how does the rate of comments change with time? the depth/quality? for instance, pick an old science post – how do the stats/views over time compare? comment quality? etc.
* people already mentioned how they get email updates – that isn’t counted in the views.
* if it matters, then, off the top of my head from the recent past – I remember reading a zebra stripe article (comment went unanswered, I believe), Matthew Cobb’s Denisovans article (really good – were there two? … – no comments by me – but almost), there were some older ones that were good too, on which I commented … it was exciting to see Richard Dawkins chime in at some point… I think… also, the science topic example in this here posting I think I read, but disregarded – why? maybe it was too … I don’t know… the thing with attaching its legs to its prey ?- maybe sounded too specific, too obscure, too… wacky…? not sure. mind you, that was me skimming headlines.
* not having time to write thoughtful comments is one thing, but I barely have time to really say much for any post – sometimes I just throw something up there and don’t bother reading follow ups. One time, I got in a heap of trouble as it dragged out, trying to fend off the assault while doing other things in my life. However, another time, I couldn’t help but keep in a discussion. These were easy topics, like music or something – not science.
* at this point, it should be clear that I did not want to write using my phone – I had to wait to get to a desktop.
… anyways, some general, some personal points, 2 cents -worth,… I suppose I could “vote” by subbing to comments as I have seen others do.
Count me as another who reads the science posts, but doesn’t usually click-through to read the comments, so is invisible. (Though I made one of those 249 views, because I clicked-through, not so that I could read comments, but so that I could print-to-PDF the single article, as I tend to archive interesting ones.)
I have been on the road so just read this. Count me with everyone who reads all the science posts. But, my last paleontology and genetics classes were in 1970, so I find that I have little basis for comments, but I enjoy the comments of others and I am learning a lot.
It’s not always worthwhile for me to read the comments. If they only contain ‘thank you for the post’ type of comment.
And I cannot bring myself to posting hollow statements.
Most science articles I can add absolutely nothing; so I don’t.
Ok, I’m a jerk; but really like the science posts.
This is one of few sites I check every day and I read it primarily for the biology. Like others, I don’t often click on the post to read it nor will I comment unless I have something substantive to add to the discussion but rest assured that I do read each and every evolution post on the site. Some of them provoke questions for my classroom (with appropriate credit to the originator), others just provide a curiosity fix. I would miss them.
For what it’s worth, I use RSS reader app ( AOL Reader, kind of a successor to Google Reader) to do most of my daily web site reading, which wouldn’t show up as a page view on your stats unless I click through to comment on something. If other visitors also use RSS apps to read your content, they would be underrepresented as well.
I enjoyed the arthropod article very much.
I read all of them. I just do not comment, as most of the time, I have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
Once in a while, I will click on an article to read the comments.
For these pieces, if you had a ‘[Read More]’ forcing us to click to the full write-up, you should see those numbers go way up.
Would holding a ‘census’ day help? Readers would log into wordpress and type in a comment, however brief, on whichever posts genuinely interested them (even if it’s a tickle to the funny bone). They’d be doing this on their honour, and not to artificially boost numbers.
Like many commenters here, I really appreciate the science posts but rarely click through to read the comments or (even more rarely) make a comment myself.
I see many people are suggesting putting the bulk of such posts under a fold. Personally I don’t like that idea, since one of the delights of this website is the ability to read a post in its entirety without having to click through. My internet connection is often erratic, to say the least, and I can often end up spending more time waiting for a page to load than actually reading it.
Nevertheless, I think there ought to be some way for readers’ appreciation to be recorded. Is there any way to add a ‘Like’ button to each post so readers can express their gratitude for PCC’s hard work?
Somehow this post reminded me of the following lines from the ancient Sanskrit playwright Bhavabhūti (translated, of course):
Hello, I am fairly new to your blog but I feel I must mention that I discovered it because of your science articles which I have enjoyed immensely, unfortunately since I am very new here I have not been able to contribute much in the way of views.
So I probably will not be able to persuade you to keep your science articles, despite that being the primary draw for a reader like me.
Nonetheless, I will try for you see you were the first person that was able to explain to me how egg-eating snakes functioned, I was amazed and would have praised the article had I anything to say more substantial than “Wow! What a derived tetropod, good article!”.
I hardly comment, but reading this blog is one of the first things I do when I open my computer.
Science is what brought me here (I googled for some evolution thing which I can no longer remember) and what I find most interesting (readers’ beefs posts are a close second).
All the rest is a nice bonus, as far as I am concerned, but honestly, I’m confident enough in my atheism, and this would make this site just one of many sites I check here and there for new stuff.
Jerry, I completely understand your desire for higher numbers. After all, if nobody’s reading, there’s not much reason to write. All I know to tell you is that I read WEIT almost completely for the science and the wildlife.
I am an atheist and a liberal, so I generally agree with and appreciate most of most of what you write on other subjects, too. But it’s the science that brought me to this site and keeps me coming back almost every day.
I very much hope you can find it worth your effort to continue writing the excellent science articles I come here to read, and I thank you for the wonderful service you provide for us.
I’m not sure if this counts as a view, but I receive all of your posts by email. I’m able to view your post within the contents of that email without actually coming here to the site. Thanks for your ongoing work!
Click the “Like” button at the bottom of the email. Then, the webpage will start to come up. You can close it down, right away, and still (I hope) register as having been there, seen the article, read it and enjoyed it.
I don’t like the modern “like” mania. My browser also blocks any analytic and statistic functions. The majority of my mostly middle-aged friends think the same. It’s not a lack of appreciation, it’s the rejection of surveillance and peer pressure.
Information should be given freely without counting it’s “value” by tracking one’s audience.
Jerry, As many have mentioned here, I appreciate this website more for the posts on science and philosophy than other topics. I find them very stimulating and in the case of philosophy I end up agreeing more often than not. Not agreeing with the science is, of course, not an option and I am grateful for each post that helps in bettering my amature understanding.
I do enjoy the posts about atheism, cats and politics but it is more of “preaching to the choir” as far as I am concerned 🙂
PS: I have been following your website for quite a few years now. But I have never posted before because I never came up with anything useful to say. I hope my first post helps to convince you to continue to post about latest scientific results.