Vote for Sciencebase

2007 Weblog Awards

I need your support! Sciencebase got nominated for a 2007 Weblog Award in the Science category, so it would be great if as many of you could vote for the site. This is the link – http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog-1.php – be sure to pick Sciencebase. I’ve been a bit slow off the mark on this one, and reckon there are probably too many others way ahead of me now to ever catch up, unless all 2604 of today’s Sciencebase’s RSS subscribers vote for me right now and pass the message on!

9 thoughts on “Vote for Sciencebase”

  1. Looks like they did a major recount on Bad Astronomy and Climate Audit and decided to make it a tie for first place, with each apparently receiving 20000 votes. Sciencebase was 9th having received 318 (thanks for your votes).

  2. It looks like Bad Astronomy (20,683) just beat Climate Audit (20,638) in the awards (congratulations Phil).

    But, does anyone else think those figures look suspiciously close, almost as if someone was running a competitive script for the sites to try and ensure one or the other came out top?

    From the stats, I posted earlier, I did a very superficial analysis of the finalists, in terms of Google pagerank, subscriber numbers, Compete, and Alexa values, and am concerned that the whole poll was massively gamed by certain parties (whether or not 3rd parties, I don’t know).

    For instance, at the time of polling, Sciencebase had almost 3000 RSS subscribers and a Compete rank of 90000th of all websites, and ended up with a little more than 300 votes (thanks to all who did!), similarly Bad Astronomy had almost 10000 subscribers, Compete of 36000th (better but same order of magnitude) and ended up with almost 21000 votes. That’s surprising to say the least. But, not quite as surprising as the fact that Climate Audit has a zero Compete rank and is ranked by Alexa at 250,000th (compared with Sciencebase 130,000th and BA, 50,000th and yet also got more than 20000 votes. In fact BA and CA were within 45 votes of each other. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?

    Most of the other finalists were lower in Alexa rank (i.e. general traffic rank) and similarly had low Compete values etc and ended up with the same order of magnitude of votes as Sciencebase. RSS subscriber count is not made available by all finalist blogs unfortunately.

    My theory is that most of the finalists received genuine, organic votes and so ended up with a few hundred people voting for them, which is maybe what you’d expect if they all have a few thousand subscribers. Whereas certain other sites may have been receiving votes other than organic votes. It just seems to be too much of a coincidence that they ended up with soooo many votes and almost exactly the same numbers, it’s as if a script were being run by someone, somewhere, most likely entirely independently of either site, to try and push one above the other.

    Of course, it could just be that the final tens of thousands of voters who managed to hit the site despite the repeated server outages simply all turned up at once to vote one site against the other…

    What do you reckon?

  3. John A, yes, you’re right, I don’t think they’re a true reflection of merit. I only just discovered this week that I’d reached the final list, whereas other blogs were asking their readers already to vote. Of course, if I’d been quicker off the mark, I’d be way in the lead. Yeah, right! I do seem to have gained about 200 new RSS subscribers this week though, which is nice. Hope they stick around till next year.

  4. Well over 200 votes now, and running a close 9th out of the top ten science blog finalists…just need a few more today to nudge Sciencebase up another slot. Keep voting and thanks for your support!

  5. I’m glad that these awards have made me aware of other interesting science blogs like this one. As far as the Weblog Awards are concerned, they’re popularity contests and not indications of relative scientific merit.

    So well done, Dave. I’m sure that you’ll grow your reader base and crush all before you next year!

  6. Dave’s site is lagging behind but still has a chance to catch up a more respectable position as it’s just 11 votes behind the next site and 24 behind the one after that. So come on, get voterizating for Sciencebas!

  7. Some additional techy information about the other finalists

    readers is based on feedburner feed count, an XXX means the site either doesn’t use FB or has not chosen to display their count. PR is Google PageRank, the higher the number the more weight in Google SERPs. Alexa is traffic rank based on their toolbar and widget usage, smaller number is better. Compete is a more accurate representation of how far a blog reaches in terms of traffic. A smaller number is better, but 0 means no compete rank.

    http://www.badastronomy.com/ – readers 9766 – PR4 – Alexa 50,291 – compete 36k

    http://www.sciencebase.com/ – readers 2826 – PR7 – Alexa 133,114 – compete 90k

    http://www.bootstrap-analysis.com/ readers 274 – PR5 – Alexa unranked – compete 412k

    http://invasivespecies.blogspot.com/ – readers 102 – PR 5 – Alexa 3,415,798

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ – readers XXX – PR7 – Alexa 11,797 – compete 7k

    http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/ – readers XXX – PR6 – Alexa 3,836 – compete 1k

    http://www.junkscience.com/ readers XXX – PR6 – Alexa 153,272 – compete 53k

    http://www.climateaudit.org/ readers XXX – PR 6 – Alexa 244,612 – Compete 0

    http://invasivespecies.blogspot.com/ readers XXX – PR5 – Alexa 3,415,798 – compete 0

    http://pipeline.corante.com/ readers XXX – PR 4 – Alexa 56,205 – compete 26k

    http://journeybystarlight.blogspot.com/ readers XXX – PR4 – Alexa 3,768,415 – compete 0

    Sites are ordered by readers, then PR, then Alexa.

Comments are closed.