The Wikio Science Blog Rankings for March

… are out. And here they are:

1 Wired Science – Wired Blog
2 Watts Up With That?
3 Climate Progress
4 RealClimate
5 Bad Astronomy
6 Climate Audit
7 Next Generation Science
8 Respectful Insolence
9 Deltoid
10 Dispatches from the Culture Wars
11 The Frontal Cortex
12 FuturePundit
13 BPS Research Digest
14 Uncertain Principles
15 Greg Laden’s Blog
16 TierneyLab – New York Times blog
17 Gene Expression
18 A Blog Around The Clock
19 Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)
20 Stoat

Wikio: directory of blogs

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn

14 thoughts on “The Wikio Science Blog Rankings for March

  1. You could make a good case that Pharyngula is more of an atheist blog than a science blog… but there’s way more science on Pharyngula than on Dispatches, which is a law/politics blog. (Nothing against Dispatches, it’s a fave of mine; I’m just saying.)

  2. “How is Watts up… a science blog?! Seriously.”

    Isn’t it a climate science blog? There seem to be a few of them high on the list.

  3. In order to be on the wikio list, you need to register with wikio (as is the case with many such lists). I assume PZ has not registered.

    As to whether PZ is a science blog, a similar question could be asked of Dispatches in terms of content (science vs. other stuff) but both blogs deal with science. The fact that the majority of PZ’s posts are not science (to the extent that is true) does not obviate the fact that he produces many science posts.

    See:

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/05/how_much_science_does_a_scienc.php

  4. watts and climaeaudit I would also argue have nothing to do with science except bash it and promote the opposite psuedoscience.

    These sites plagerise each other who in turn copied from another anti-science source and so on in an near endless chain of unattributed gumph. If you’re lucky enough to find the source it’s probably made up as was the case with that oft repeated quote being attributed to Houghton for the longest time http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826604.htm?site=thedrum

    I just looked at climateAudit and it’s recycling the Phil Jones no significant warming misrepresentation.

    And these lies are not just the minority but is the entire reason for these sites, to spread disinformation, the promotion of ignorance and doubt and are no different from pro-smoking advertisements.

    Please, it’s doing science a great disservice to have these muck-sites associated with science

  5. In order to be on the wikio list, you need to register with wikio (as is the case with many such lists).

    I tried registering Sandwalk as a science blog but they put me in the “General” category instead. I find it interesting that there’s not one single Google blog in the top 100 science blogs.

    Greg, if you are going to brag about your position on this list of “top” science blogs then it implies that you endorse the way the rankings are done. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    Do you, or do you not, believe that this list says something about the quality of science blogs?

  6. Larry, mon ami, don’t be a troll! I’m not bragging. I am, however, helping Wikio to have a better listing of science blogs (which is why I posted it … they send me the list first, then I post it to get input from people etc.).

    I find it very interesting that there are no google blogs on the list. I will include this in my report to Wikio and indicate that you should probably be on this list.

    Did wikio give you a bit of code to put in your sidebar?

  7. [adds to troll-roll]

    Only one female blogger out of 20??

    You can just tell that ranking algorithm was written by a man!

    *giggles and runs*

  8. But seriously, I will bring the gender balance issue to the attention of Wikio. Since participation is voluntary this may involve actively seeking female bloggers to sign up.

  9. Larry, mon ami, don’t be a troll!

    I don’t understand your definition of “troll.”

    I am genuinely interested in the answer to my question. Do you or do you not consider the Wikio ranking to be worth anything?

    It’s been at least a year since people first noticed that: (a) many science blogs were missing from the list, (b) ScienceBlogs(TM) were very prominent on the list, (c) many of the so-called science blogs aren’t.

    Why do you continue to give them publicity?

  10. Larry, I am working with Wikio to try to make improvements such as those you mention. That is why your comment about the google blogs is important. I am in direct communication with the editors and owners of Wikio.

    It needs to be understood that Wikio does not find science blogs, but rather, blogs define themselves and add a wiget (to a sidebar) or small button, and then these are (if I understand correctly) picked up by wikio. So, the first source of bias in what is listed on Wikio is whether or not a blog has chosen to be listed.

    Then, this top list, of the top 20, is based on some sort of measure like hit-rate or visits, or perhaps some other measure, I’m not sure.

    My primary concern originally (and the reason I’m working with Wikio) is the presence of blogs that are clearly not science blogs … specifically, fakes blogs or denialist blogs … on the list. So, one idea is to post the rankings here and ask people to comment (see my left sidebar as well). I also sent emails around to numerous colleagues for their opinions. As a result, I have a short list of blogs that I’ll be recommending to Wikio that they de-list as science blogs.

    Is the lack of Google based blogs on this top list chance and/or because these blogs have not registered? Or is there some technological explanation (the wiget/badge does not work, perhaps?). I’ll ask the Wikio editors (who read this thread, by the way) to look into that. Clearly, if there is an entire blogging platform that is not working with Wikio they will want to fix that.

    What has to be undersood is that there is not quality control here, this is just a top list like all those other blog services. However, more importantly, Wikio seems to have a genuine interest in instituting quality control of some kind, and they are open to the community of bloggers to suggest how that works and what should happen. At the moment, they’ve got “experts” (i.e., me) to help advice them, but that is a process that is only a few weeks old.

    There definitely is not a Scienceblogs.com – Wikio conspiracy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.