The future of science blogs? I hope not

Regardless of one's opinion of the framing topic or the authors of Intersection, I think anyone familiar with the science blogosphere would concur that such behavior is increasing in both volume and venom. Which is sad and unnecessary.

I wrote a longer post at the Intersection, but I disagree regarding the venom increasing. I think there's a subset of writers at scienceblogs where slightly tense personal relationships have gotten more strained, but, for the most part, there's a lot of good writing happening (even among bloggers who don't personally like each other). In some ways, I think it's a maturing. At some point, the public science bloggers seemed to want to pretend that everyone got along even when they disagreed. Being able to say you don't like someone is more realistic (though perhaps they could say it less often)

BTW, I'm not doing any analytics, but it seems like you're posting more on your blogcation than when you were actually blogging!

I not only post more normally, I write longer posts instead of just posting links, and also get significantly more traffic. As I told people before I left, I had written some posts and scheduled them in advance to pop up as appropriate. I've only actually dropped in to write about three or four time-sensitive posts and maybe three comments. This is the longest comment I've written.

Also, I disagree with you completely on the blogosphere. On the local level, Sb has changed tangibly since I agreed to join two years ago. Pharyngula has changed dramatically since I started reading it four or five years ago. And the types of comments I get at BioE have changed over the three years I've been blogging in quite interesting ways. That doesn't mean there's not "good writing" happening. But by all measures I personally use to determine if an activity is rewarding/worth it, blogging's teetering on the edge, and it's almost entirely due to an increasingly poisonous atmosphere. I'm not going to point fingers and call out anyone for causing the poisoning, because it's not a simple question, and there are no simple scapegoats. But it's real.

Sorry for temporarily pulling you from your break. Even if you're posting less, you're still the most prolific non-blogging blogger that I can remember. I do enjoy your writing and I hope you re-find your blogging balance and figure out a way to enjoyably continue. I can see being a member of scienceblogs.com being a mixed for you, but count me as one reader who might not have found you if you hadn't joined.

As for our disagreement, perhaps we have different spheres of blogs we read. I never got into reading Pharyngula so its changes never affected me. I also don't have my own blog so I don't have to deal with comments directed at my personal creative output (though I've lightly entertained the idea of starting one). There are a few blogs that have interested me less over time, a few individuals who I think consistently weaken comments sections, and a couple of science blogs I now actively avoid. In my case they have been balanced by finding other, new cool stuff.

If the blogosphere is still good for you, bsci, then I respect that. :) True, it might be different if you were blogging, but then it might not; bloggers have different levels of irritability, enthusiasm, and investment. Some commenters are just as prolific and invested in the community as bloggers themselves, although not having a "home turf" may make a difference to their perspective on it; it's really hard to generalize. Regardless, there's a really wide range of responses among bloggers and commenters to this issue right now - and I do think it is an issue, as the fallout from the SciOnline civility panel shows.

I'm thinking about this a lot just for its implications on how A) the public perceives scientific discourse and B) how it affects the structures we set up online - blogs and networks - for holding discourse, not just on science, but also on policy. It's clear that in a free speech jurisdiction, no discourse will ever be perfectly civil. But it's also clear that a discourse can become so uncivil as to become useless and then abandoned. The question is how you steer down the middle in a healthy way, from a policy POV.

At risk of getting flamed myself, the comments that have ensued on Sheril's post (over 400!!) are a very important albeit extraordinarily caricatured discussion that needs to be had about what perception it does for science blogs to allow profane references to sexual mutilation and violence become arguments du jour in discussions about scientific issues.

At risk of promoting blog armageddon, I'd even say we need more of these kinds of discussions about such rhetoric's validity.