A year in ScienceBlogs

Following last week’s 400th anniversary post, I have another celebratory announcement. A year ago today*, I set foot in ScienceBlogs for the first time.

As previously noted, some things have changed while others are much the same. The posting rate has gone up, and traffic has almost quadrupled from about 4,000 views per week to something like 16,000 now. Nonetheless, I’ve kept to the basic rules – non-sensationalist, considered, writing based on primary sources, for a general audience.

Some thanks are in order. I’m very grateful to the following people:

• The awesome ScienceBlogs overlords, Erin, Arikia and Ginny for bringing me into the fold and continually promoting this blog
• SuperReaders past and present, Lilian, Jon, Mike, Dennis, Paul and Jean-Baptiste
• Linkers, commenters and readers; you’re  a diverse and intelligent bunch of people. Click on that link and tell me more about you.
• The scientists who’ve posted compliments about reports of their work, and particularly those who’ve fielded questions from commenters – you’re a great example of the potential of blogging in science communication.
• And last but certainly not least, my fellow SciBlings (again past and present) for providing camaraderie, linkage and a community worth being a part of.

Some trivia, for anyone who’s interested. In year, I’ve accumulated:

• about 400k-500k page views (depending on whether Google Analytics or Sitemeter is to be believed)
• about 1,100 feed subscribers
• 2,182 comments;
• 332 posts including 213 original pieces and 88 reposts (meaning that 91% of posts are summaries of peer-reviewed literature and 64% are breaking news)  
• enough material for one book
• many, many hours worth of sleep debt
• an enormous sense of satisfaction

Right now, enough navel-gazing. More news (as in actual science news) this evening, and plenty more to round the week off. Segregated sharks, Alzheimer’s news, child-like voters, moral disgust, unenviable DIY and, if I can help it, some funky gibbons. See you later.

* Well, technically tomorrow, but today’s a slower news day.