<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[A Blog Around The Clock]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://blog.coturnix.org]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Bora Zivkovic]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://blog.coturnix.org/author/coturnix/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Nature on Science&nbsp;Blogs]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>Journal Nature has published a short article about science blogging.  You do not need a subscription to read it &#8211; you can find it <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060703/full/442009a.html" target="_blank" title="" />here</a>.<br />
In it, they highlight Top 5 science blogs according to Technorati rankings.  Those five are, quite deservingly, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula" target="_blank" title="" />Pharyngula</a>, <a href="http://www.pandasthumb.org/" target="_blank" title="" />Panda&#8217;s Thumb</a>, <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/" target="_blank" title="" />Real Climate</a>, <a href="http://cosmicvariance.com/" target="_blank" title="" />Cosmic Variance</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist" target="_blank" title="" />Scientific Activist</a>.  Interestingly, three of the top five are group blogs, and all five delve, either partically or entirely, on various religiously and politically motivated attacks on science.  I guess this is what sells better than pure science commentary, for good reasons, and the blogs covering a greater variety of topics understandably draw greater crowds.<br />
They also posted a list of Top 50, which you can find <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060703/multimedia/50_science_blogs.html" target="_blank" title="" />here</a>.  They say that 22 our of those 50 are SEED sciencebloggers.<br />
They had a somewhat strange <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060703/multimedia/how.html" target="_blank" title="" />criterion for inclusion</a> on the list, based on a somewhat dubious definiton of a &#8220;working scientist&#8221;.  Thus, some of the best blogs that are most certainlly &#8216;science blogs&#8217; are either not on the list, or relegated to an additional list of blogs by <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060703/multimedia/science_blog_by_writers.html" target="_blank" title="" />writers who write about science</a>, where you can find Carl Zimmer and Phil Plait among others.<br />
<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/i_blush_to_mention_it.php" target="_blank" title="" />PZ</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2006/07/nature_tracking_blogs.php" target="_blank" title="" />Alex</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/07/nature_on_science_blogs.php" target="_blank" title="" />Tara</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/07/im_somewhat_popular.php" target="_blank" title="" />John Lynch</a> have already posted their commentary on the Nature&#8217;s list.<br />
I was happy to see myself on the list, on the 20th spot.  Apparently, they used the Technorati rankings of <a href="http://circadiana.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" title="" />Circadiana</a> (14,920) to determine this, although they linked to this blog.  My blog would have moved somewhat up or down the list if they chose instead to go with the rankings of <a href="http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" title="" />Science And Politics</a> (3,229), <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/clock" target="_blank" title="" />A Blog Around The Clock</a> (15,456), or <a href="http://themagicschoolbus.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" title="" />The Magic School Bus</a> (35,258).<br />
I have on my Bloglines currently more than 450 science or science-related blogs.  I used to make big link-fests covering the science blogosphere.  If you check out the <a href="http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2006/05/link-love-science-blogging-part-xii.html" target="_blank" title="" />last such linkfest</a> it also links back to all the previous editions.  Perhaps I should do another one soon.  All the spotlight is on the SuperPopular blogs.  I&#8217;d like you to explore some less-well-known yet excellent other science blogs, so check out those old linkfests.<br />
<strong>Update: </strong><a href="http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2006/07/welcome-to-nature.html" target="_blank" title="" />Josh</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2006/07/well_done_sciencebloggers.php" target="_blank" title="" />Mike</a>, <a href="http://www.geneticsandhealth.com/2006/07/05/natures-50-most-popular-science-blogs/" target="_blank" title="" />Hsien</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/07/huh_howd_that_happen.php" target="_blank" title="" />Mark</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2006/07/were_number_8312.php" target="_blank" title="" />Chad</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2006/07/the_scientific_activist_ranked.php" target="_blank" title="" />Nick</a>, <a href="http://viagene.blogspot.com/2006/07/breves-notas-da-nature.html" target="_blank" title="" />Ana</a>, <a href="http://www.bootstrap-analysis.com/2006/07/welcome_naturec.html" target="_blank" title="" />Nuthatch</a>, <a href="http://www.intellymagic.com/blog/?p=89" target="_blank" title="" />Frank</a>, <a href="http://comciencias.blogspot.com/2006/07/top-50-blogs-cientficos.html" target="_blank" title="" />Osame</a>, <a href="http://jeremycherfas.net/wp/Archive/2006/07/05/love-bomb/" target="_blank" title="" />Jeremy</a>, <a href="http://monado2.blogspot.com/2006/07/top-five-science-blogs.html" target="_blank" title="" />Monado</a>, <a href="http://wordmunger.com/?p=650" target="_blank" title="" />Dave</a> and <a href="http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/nature_on_scien.html" target="_blank" title="" />Reed</a> also chime in .<br />
And <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/07/almost_only_counts_in_horseshoes_and_han.php" target="_blank" title="" />Orac</a> &#8211; watch out, he is in the most dangerous 6th spot!<br />
<a href="http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/07/06/top-50-science-blogs/" target="_blank" title="" />M.C.</a> and <a href="http://adaptare.blogspot.com/2006/07/nature-features-science-blogs.html" target="_blank" title="" />Julian</a> chime in&#8230;<br />
<strong>Update 2: </strong><a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/07/06/im-a-top-science-blogger/" target="_blank" title="" />Phil Plait</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/07/10/yarn_versus_science_who_wins.php" target="_blank" title="" />Carl Zimmer</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2006/07/the_nature_list_of_science_blo_1.php" target="_blank" title="" />Revere</a> have some good commentary.<br />
<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2006/07/masters_of_the_universe_nature.php" target="_blank" title="" />Matt</a>, <a href="http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/07/top_science_blo.html" target="_blank" title="" />Steve Rubel</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/07/my_first_mention_in_nature.php" target="_blank" title="" />John Wilkins</a>, <a href="http://engineering.curiouscatblog.net/2006/07/06/50-top-science-blogs/" target="_blank" title="" />Curious Cat</a>, <a href="http://journals.aol.com/johnmscalzi/bytheway/entries/6163" target="_blank" title="" />John Scalzi</a> take note.</p>
]]></html></oembed>