Comments on: The status of this blog https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/ Tue, 15 May 2012 11:25:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492885 Tue, 15 May 2012 11:25:57 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492885 Regarding the question of what will be converted to the new format: The entire site is being/has been converted. All older blogs, defuct blogs, whatever you see now.

Steps are also being taken to convert post late April stuff automatically as well.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492884 Sat, 12 May 2012 23:47:54 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492884 I don’t know what is being moved vs. not. Among the active blogs, everything up to this date in April (or later) will be moved to the same URL’s as the current blog by moving everything to a temporary subdomain. Then the subdomain name will be removed from the new (wordpress) blog so Google shouldn’t even notice.

Good question about defunt blogs. I’m kicking it upstairs.

]]> By: coturnix https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492883 Sat, 12 May 2012 23:18:00 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492883 What will happen to all the incoming links? Archives of all the blogs that are not on the network any more? There are millions of posts on the network (about 10,000 of those are mine) and some will not get moved because the blogs are not live any more. Can they do a redirect? Can old blogs still be found on the old addresses after you all move? What will the migration to do all of yours google juice?

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492882 Fri, 11 May 2012 18:09:16 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492882 sailor, sure, but there are also people who regard every word written on a blog as a sacred document of how someone was wrong on the internet!

]]> By: sailor https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492881 Fri, 11 May 2012 17:23:49 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492881 I always though comments were for the moment rather than posterity.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492880 Fri, 11 May 2012 11:08:13 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492880 Being that National Geographic is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch and his corrupt right-wing associates, I will cease following anyone on Science Blogs, much as I may miss a few of the original bloggers (Chad and Steinn specifically). I’ll stick with you over at FTB.
So long, and thanks for all the Albany and Congo tales.

You’re welcome to shift totally to the FTB community, of course, but this is not accurate. First, nobody owns the National Geographic society. Having said that, it is true that many products that NGS puts out (most of the stuff on cable TV and documentaries) is produced by one or more corporations that are co-owned by NGS and Murdoch’s company. From what I’ve seen the Murdoch part of each of those enterprises is either 50 or 60 percent depending on the show.

Science blogs is not owned by NGS or Murdoch. It is owned by Seed Media Group.

]]> By: Stephanie Z https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492879 Fri, 11 May 2012 10:56:33 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492879 chezjake, to the best of my knowledge, nothing is changing about the underlying monetary structures, etc. All that happened with National Geographic happened a year or so ago. The only thing that will be different is that it will be easier to see.

]]> By: Achrachno https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492878 Fri, 11 May 2012 09:51:48 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492878 I’m sure I’ve not said any smart things since last year, so no losses here.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492877 Fri, 11 May 2012 08:06:12 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492877 Orac, I have to believe that they CAN do it! I cannot explain this. I’m guessing that they are contractors and finished out their contract or something. But even so, this could be done internally.

Yeah, this may well be fixable. I’m happy (enough) to slow down activity for a couple of weeks, but I don’t think it is fair to commenters who said all those smart things since late April without knowing it would all go away. (BTW, my last post on the new platform is from several days before the stated date.)

]]> By: Orac https://gregladen.com/blog/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492876 Fri, 11 May 2012 06:26:56 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/05/10/the-status-of-this-blog/#comment-492876

I know this is unusual, but there are reasons for it which I can explain roughly but I can’t answer questions about because I don’t have access to the independent IT firm hired to do this work. The bottom line is that the old MovableType platform was virtually intractable. I’m not sure how they ended up making the transition but it was not a simple export/import situation. There are rumors that wget and awk may have been used, that’s how bad things were.

You mean that this independent IT firm can’t figure out how to do a simple script to import the last four weeks of posts and comments? You know, the way that Mark Chu-Carroll and Ed Brayton did when they set up Scientopia and Freethoughtblogs?

I don’t believe it, and I’ve told the powers that be so. Maybe if readers complain…

]]>