Who are you, what are you doing here and why do you keep looking at me? VI: Breaking Bad

I’m running a few months behind schedule on this on but I finally remembered. It’s a meme for you, Dear Reader, to take more than the usual spotlight you enjoy at this blog. This is especially for you lurkers (in case you didn’t notice, the email field can be filled with nonsense like dev@null.com). For the the veterans, yes I know who you are but feel free to update us on any changes in the way you interact with the blog…especially if you’ve lost touch with the content, been dismayed or just decided that I’m not who you thought at first, ideas-wise.

So, to work!

1) Tell me about yourself. Who are you? Do you have a background in science? If so, what draws you here as opposed to meatier, more academic fare? And if not, what brought you here and why have you stayed?

2) Have you told anyone else about this blog? Why? Were they folks who are not a scientist?. Ever sent anything to family members or groups of friends who don’t understand your career?

3) How did you find us and how do you regularly follow us? through Twitter, Facebook and/or other beyond-RSS mechanisms?

[This is all the fault of Ed Yong. Head over the the last iteration to see all the gory details and links to prior comment threads.]

Linkage

The National Institute on Aging has a new blog, go comment and tell them we want funding data!

Francis Collins was on Hardball discussing the sequester impact.

“Independent Scientist” Perlstein covered in Science, bit titled “Going Rogue”. Unfortunately.

Impact Factor Distortions editorial

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is unimpressed with Impact Factor assessment of science.

Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine give $70 Million to USC. Scientists everywhere fantasize about finding their own celebrity backers…..

The unsuccessful self-treatment of a case of writer’s block (h/t Namnezia)

The return of double doc

Our good blog friend drdrA returns!

I’m sure you’ve noticed that I’ve taken three steps back from the blogging business for a while now. Although I don’t want to provide an exhaustive list of reasons for why I did this, I do want to offer a brief explanation. The first, and probably most important reason, is that I don’t feel like I had anything urgent to say- and when I don’t have anything to say it is better just to keep my mouth put my keyboard down rather than to splatter some drivel out there.

analogies

my blather on the realities of being an NIH extramurally-funded investigator is to “game theory” what screaming and waving in panic is to dogpaddling over to the side and climbing out the pool ladder.

Scientopia Schwaggage

I’m doing a face lift over at the Scientopia Blogs CafePress shoppe.

It’s been a little while since I messed around and they have a few new products including this little number for the #phitnessdouchery types. I realize I never really set this up beyond the basics so it may take me a little bit of time to put up the items that I think would be of interest. Meaning that in the event that you know there’s something in the cafepress catalog that I haven’t put up yet and you want it, drop me a note (drugmnky at the googles mail). I also tend to put images on the back of the shirt where cafepress permits. This is a personal preference. If you want something with the logo on the front drop me a line and we should be able to work that out.

Oh, and I got around to making a DrugMonkey logo with the right URL on it finally. Here’s the much beloved simple coffee mug. I’ll get to the rest later.
The only other news is that I’m adding a $0.50-1.00 markup which will be funneled back into the Scientopia operating fund. This is part and parcel of the effort previously leading to the paypal link and now the Google ads on the sidebar. We’re still running a hefty monthly deficit, this is being footed by one of the gang so anything you care to do to chip in will help out a ton.

How are you enjoying Scientopia blogs?

It’s been awhile that we’ve been rolling as a blog collective and I am curious what you think. If you are a reader of any of these blogs that predates the collective, have you missed a beat? Are there things that you dislike (or like better) about your favorite blogs?

For everyone, what do you like and dislike about Scientopia? What would you see as a way to improve?

Open thread, so go nuts.

Happy New Year

To all of my readers, the bloggers the I read and the Twitts with whom I chat…. Here’s wishing a very happy and productive 2013 to you and yours.

Best of luck to the job seekers and the grant supplicants, in particular. Fair winds to all the parents out there…may those of you with really young ones find some sleep. Happy dissertating to the late stage graduate students in the crowd and may all trainees publish a paper or three this year.

I’m not much for resolutions so I’m not prepared to offer any up…but I do have an interest is sustained behavioral change. I was able to improve in two target areas last year, one personal and one professional. The former is exercise related and was assisted by the Tweeperati- I may continue to rely upon you this year. The second target isn’t really blogable for obvious reasons but I hope to continue a slightly new approach to my work for the coming year.

I wish you all luck with your goals and resolutions and suggest that you seek online social support for any of them that require sustained behavioral change on your part.

Reinforcement works.

social media helpful suggestions…-ism busting or too damn stupid as yet

in this case it is the gmailz suggesting I add a couple of more email addresses to my group message…

You know what starts academics a-blogging?

Mind bogglingly out of touch statements from people at the higher echelons of the NIH, that’s what.

New Scientopians!

Thirty-seven

Elephants, Giraffes, Baboons

Transient Interactions

Enjoy!

Where are you from? The Othering

From Kristin Booker at xojane:

But at the end of the day, a simple answer should be sufficient, random stranger. If I decide to answer that question at all, I’m being nice. All further questions past the answer, “I’m Black,” will now be met with one answer and one answer only: “I’ve answered your question.”

I am who I am. Who my progenitors had sex with is none of your business. Kindly stop asking. This interview is now over. *throws mic down*

I saw this from a link to jezebel.

In other news, despite being kinda majority culture this woman puts it well.

To completely switch gears on you, I often think of this song in the context of academic genealogy.

Who are you, what are you doing here and why do you keep looking at me? V: The Quickening

In the antiquity of the ScienceBloggingWeb Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science asked his readers a simple question:

1) Tell me about you. Who are you? Do you have a background in science? If so, what draws you here as opposed to meatier, more academic fare? And if not, what brought you here and why have you stayed? Let loose with those comments.

2) Tell someone else about this blog and in particular, try and choose someone who’s not a scientist but who you think might be interested in the type of stuff found in this blog. Ever had family members or groups of friends who’ve been giving you strange, pitying looks when you try to wax scientific on them? Send ’em here and let’s see what they say.

He’s back at it this year, btw.

Last year I added:

I’m interested in whether you found us, or regularly follow us, through Twitter, Facebook and/or other beyond-RSS mechanisms that you may use to corral your information stream.

So for those newcomers to the blog, have at it, will you? Especially you lurkers (in case you didn’t notice, the email field can be filled with nonsense like dev@null.com).

Then head over to the previous editions (here, here, here and here) and get a feel for the community.

The veterans….I know who you are :-). But feel free to update us on any changes in the way you interact with the blog…especially if you’ve lost touch with the content, been dismayed or just decided that I’m not who you thought at first, ideas-wise.

have at it……

Scientopia transitions

You will notice a new PayPal button on the sidebar of this blog and possibly other blogs around the Scientopia collective. Very likely you did not notice new amendments to our Code. The short version is, we finally have a way to handle money. This is good because it allows us to try to cover the operational costs of this blog collective which had heretofore been borne by a single member. It was thought that we should get our financial/tax/LLC/blahdeblah in order first and this apparently prevented even donations from ourselves to the cause.

We have apparently negotiated those rough waters. There are three issues on the table at the moment for your understanding and consideration.

First the button and my sidebar text: Your donation helps to support the operation of Scientopia – thanks for your consideration.

This is provided for anyone who would care to support Scientopia. Our expenses are the hosting and bandwidth charges, at the moment there is nobody getting paid to do anything service-related for the upkeep.

Second, the Scientopia schwag shop items now have a modest markup. Said markup will be routed into the Scientopia coffers.

Third, at some point in the future there will be ads on the blogs. Not sure who/what/how just yet, but it is in the works.

I won’t make the NPR style plea, you folks can do the maths for yourselves.

On blogging

You know you are doing your proper job as a blogger when SiteMeter shows you a bunch of folks on the site for 20-40 min plus, just waiting around to enjoy the comment fireworks.

SciAm bloggers get pizzaid!

A tweet from one @robinlloyd99 indicates that the pay structure worked out for the Scientific American blogs runs a fixed $200 per month.

.@BoraZ: some networks pay more to those who bring more traffic. @sciam network doesn’t. same monthly pay for every blogger. $200

Not too shabby. I may have reached that in one or two big months at Scienceblogs.com but for the most part the paystructure there was running maybe $100-$150 per month for the DM blog, which was right around 20% or so down the traffic list. So the vast majority of Sb bloggers were not making anything near what SciAm blogs is paying. Including Sb escapees such as Myrmecos, SciCurious and Aunt Janet.

 

This is fantastic.