Comments for Bench Marks

Comment on Digital intimacy by Science in the Open » Blog Archive » Convergent evolution of scientist behaviour on Web 2.0 sites?

Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:48:34 +0000

[...] thought sparked off by a comment from Maxine Clarke at Nature Networks where she posted a link to a post by David Crotty. The thing that got me thinking was Maxine’ statement: I would add that in my [...]

Comment on I’ve collected my data, now what do I do with it? by More collaboration in biology

More collaboration in biology — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:07:12 +0000

[...] Cushing Memorial Library and Archives, Texas A&M I’ve collected my data, now what do I do with it?: [Via Bench Marks] 4-dimensional live cell imaging has gone from being a rare technique used only [...]

Comment on I’ve collected my data, now what do I do with it? by More collaboration in biology « Path To Sustainable

More collaboration in biology « Path To Sustainable — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:06:30 +0000

Comment on I’ve collected my data, now what do I do with it? by The new basic biology « A Man With A Ph.D.

The new basic biology « A Man With A Ph.D. — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:04:50 +0000

[...] December 21, 2009 — Richard Gayle by Cushing Memorial Library and Archives, Texas A&M I’ve collected my data, now what do I do with it?: [Via Bench Marks] 4-dimensional live cell imaging has gone from being a rare technique used only [...]

Comment on Web 2.0 for Biologists–Are any of the current tools worth using? by Mike Chelen

Mike Chelen — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:52:21 +0000

Many Eyes comes in handy for making interactive web visualizations. Trying to use it like a social network doesn’t really work as well.

Comment on Web 2.0 for Biologists–Are any of the current tools worth using? by Brian H

Brian H — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:28:06 +0000

David;
yes, I could have been clearer by specifying: commenting -on other people’s articles without asking for help. And tagging: other people’s work and articles without specific expectation of going back to them yourself.

But on sites with strong controversy and some political fireworks behind the scenes, the comments (thorough and researched down through illiterate invective) flow like a river!

I personally quickly gave up on tagging, and am bemused and mystified by the significance and delight some seem to find in “tag clouds”, etc.

Comment on Web 2.0 for Biologists–Are any of the current tools worth using? by David Crotty

David Crotty — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:40:32 +0000

Commenting encompasses many different things, not just altruism. You may want to point out the holes in a competitor's paper, or note how their results confirm your own. As an editor of a methods journal, the few comments we see are purely done out of self interest--I can't get this technique to work, can somebody help me out? Think about the way people do product reviews on a site like Amazon. People seem much more motivated to write a review on a product where they've had a bad experience and feel ripped-off than one where they have an adequate experience. Altruism is nice, but there are definite negatives that overwhelm it--fear of competition, fear of committing career suicide by publicly criticizing the work of someone who may sit on your grant, hiring or tenure committee, and fear of wasting time. There's no career credit given for being nice. You can spend an hour writing a comment, or put that hour into writing your next paper. Also remember that the vast majority of scientists work in the private sector at for-profit companies. Only a small minority work in the ivory tower of academia, and even there you've got heavy career pressure and institutional pressure to come up with profitable patents. Very few are likely to compromise these things for the sake of helping out a stranger. Tagging is a slightly different issue. If it was a good organizational system, it wold be worth doing for yourself, and the altruism of sharing your tags would be an added bonus. But tagging is a terrible and inefficient way to organize your material, which makes it harder to justify the altruism. As far as reader notifications, I've written a recent piece on how the long shelf-life and asynchronous timing of access to science papers has a negative effect on commenting. You can see it here.

Comment on Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology by David Crotty

David Crotty — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:28:49 +0000

Link fixed, thanks for catching that. I think the reluctance to comment goes far beyond worries about link-rot and comments disappearing. See more details in my response to your other comment here.

Comment on Web 2.0 for Biologists–Are any of the current tools worth using? by Brian H

Brian H — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:11:55 +0000

Commenting and tagging are related; both are altruistic activities with no short-term payoff. Even long-term, no personal benefit is likely from any particular action; only the contribution to the overall “mass” of accumulating info in accessible format is of value.

The wish-list item this suggests is an AI tool that generates relevant tags and (perhaps) provides the commenter with updated feedback on # of readers and any responses/uses of the comment. Attention is the primo scarce commodity and valued payoff, and the door to any and all other benefits of involvement.

Comment on Why Web 2.0 is failing in Biology by Brian H

Brian H — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:57:16 +0000

Addendum: it was Barend Mons, and the original link is http://www,wikiprofessional.org/conceptweb , which needs both a period and the addition of the second www. to work.