tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2066523326381482793.post7393986961803132780..comments2024-03-25T02:02:15.771-04:00Comments on It's Not a Lecture: The mysterious story of Scienceblogs and FreethoughtblogsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2066523326381482793.post-60824613950373815612011-12-21T08:16:43.657-05:002011-12-21T08:16:43.657-05:00curious don't you think? how this happen, all ...curious don't you think? how this happen, all begun in the same way, and when you notice it, BOOM! are two totally separet and different things.Online pharmacy reviewshttp://www.pharmacyreviews.conoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2066523326381482793.post-30860547091124499482011-08-01T21:26:02.280-04:002011-08-01T21:26:02.280-04:00Let me clarify a few points in your post:
Nationa...Let me clarify a few points in your post:<br /><br />National Geographic does not own scienceblogs.com, did not take over scienceblogs.com or purchase it. We have an arrangement, an interesting one and one that I look forward to developing, but scienceblogs.com is still owned by Seed Media group, and Seed Media Group still runs it.<br /><br />I am unaware of PZ's contract, but I am under the impression that all of our contracts are similar, even identical. I'm pretty sure there's never been any kind of non-compete clause, and in fact, that sort of thing is very much out of character for the nature of our arrangements within sb.com.<br /><br />PZ has decided that he'll be more comfortable elsewhere, and that's understandable, but rumors of NGS intending on cracking down on content, etc. are pretty much inaccurate. My understanding is that they want to link to Sb.com posts that are appropriate, much like the New York Times (with whom we also have a relationship) does now except more elaborately. In fact, NGS is already linking to us in a very preliminary way. And, they will be selective in what they link to. <br /><br />Interestingly, there was a discussion of standards and practices and I'm sure this is all secret, but I'll stick my neck out and tell you this: Scienceblogs actually had a standards and practice document, and once NGS got a look at it they said they'd be more than happy if we just stuck with that. I suppose I'll have to read the damn thing now!<br /><br />NGS is not asking us to remove old content, cross linking and dividing up content is pretty much up to the individual bloggers and there are no restrictions or pressures. (I currently divide my content across three blogs, do lots of cross linking, and over the next few months that will shift so I'll prob. be dividing content among three blogs but a different list of them).<br /><br />I don't quite get your point about censorship for a buck or how that works. Is this something I can get in on???? Prolly not...<br /><br />Regarding Sb's lack of responsiveness to we bloggers, that's been blogged about quite a bit by PZ and yes, it is true; On the other hand, this could be thought of as a sort of "hands off" policy which has other benefits. Regarding the slow transition to developing NGS connections: All I'll say about that is that I turned the banner of my blog yellow when the NGS thing was first discussed. That was a Loooong time ago. So yeah, but things are starting to happen. <br /><br />I look forward to seeing how Freethoughtblogs develops. I'm sure it will be an instant success because PZ and Ed bring so much to the table (PZ was the biggest blog at Sb.com, but Ed was not so small either). I'm looking forward to seeing how PZ divides up his content. I think Frethoughtblogs is a great project.<br /><br /><em>but now the network can't sell web traffic to advertisers, and that creates a new set of problems.</em><br /><br />I haven't heard that! <br /><br />Oh yeah, and I loved the crowd sourceing for the new server arrangement. I was at the car mechanic the other day wishing I could do that for my engine....Greg Ladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857616630819182647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2066523326381482793.post-51707839130486569692011-08-01T20:17:10.411-04:002011-08-01T20:17:10.411-04:00PZ/Ed are WAY overcharging on their own ad rates. ...PZ/Ed are WAY overcharging on their own ad rates. Otherwise, Natl Geo appears semi-craven.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2066523326381482793.post-10431050450803627402011-08-01T20:04:04.491-04:002011-08-01T20:04:04.491-04:00I dunno, I think Sb will be OK. It won't be th...I dunno, I think Sb will be OK. It won't be the same, certainly, but I'm already seeing quite a bit of traffic whenever my posts are linked to from the Nat Geo site. Once the change-over is official, I expect this will continue. <br /><br />I get the occasional random hit from the pharyngula sidebar, but the vast majority of people going to read PZ and Ed go to read PZ and Ed, not to bum around the rest of Sb. Yes, they will take a huge chunk of traffic with them, but I think the rest of us will be ok.Kevinhttp://scienceblogs.com/webeasitesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2066523326381482793.post-52288667032236500832011-08-01T19:55:35.184-04:002011-08-01T19:55:35.184-04:00You may be right about PZ, but I'm glad he'...You may be right about PZ, but I'm glad he's taking the anti-religious stuff off of Sb. I likes my science untainted with ugly rantsDNLeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08086475028464064823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2066523326381482793.post-77490970171500411842011-08-01T19:51:11.874-04:002011-08-01T19:51:11.874-04:00I get the impression from what he says that the sc...I get the impression from what he says that the science stuff will be mirrored on FtB as well? I might well end up carrying on with ScienceBlogs out of habit...Craighttp://neuromancy.southernfriedscience.comnoreply@blogger.com