Sign in or Join FriendFeed
FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more »

Daniel Mietchen › Comments

Daniel Mietchen
Feature request: Search by license -
About the benefits of a search-by-license feature at PubMed: Open Access comes in many flavours, as highlighted by Cameron Neylon some hours ago. One of these flavours is the type of license under which the content is made available — one of the intersections of science and law. To facilitate navigation in these waters, it would be good if 1. all articles were clearly tagged (for both humans and machines) with their respective license (the same argument for data is central to the Panton Principles, by the way) 2. the license type could be used as a parameter in searches across articles or their metadata, or aggregations thereof (as is possible on Flickr and BioTorrents, and requested at Vimeo). - Daniel Mietchen
Thank you! Plenty to ponder in your response, thanks for posting it. - Rachel Walden
Reply from PubMed just came in: "The data to which I believe you are referring is not contained on PubMed/MEDLINE records. It cannot, therefore, be made searchable." It seems I should have submitted to the PMC helpdesk at . Just did so. - Daniel Mietchen
Took a while, and a lot of nudging from Daniel, but PMC search by license is now a reality: - Chris M
yay! - Kubke
daniel, do you have a new url for that blog post? - Kubke
Daniel Mietchen
@Twitter posted a photo: The geography of Tweets: This image uses all of the geo-tagged Tweets since 2009 — billions of them. (Every dot is a Tweet, and the color is the Tweet count.) Copyright Twitter, Inc. (@twitter) - Daniel Mietchen
What is your FF Comments/Likes Ratio? (Comments divided by Likes to 2nd decimal place - as of now) -
What is your FF Comments/Likes Ratio? (Comments divided by Likes to 2nd decimal place - as of now)
1.05 (670/633) - Micah from Bookmarklet
Can you remind me again where to find those stats? - Brian Johns
Brian, go to "Me" link ( which defaults to the Feed tab. Look at the sidebar on the right, below Discussion. - Micah
0.75 (926/1226) - still relatively new here - mikepk
I only see my stats for the last week (17/14 = 1.21) Please tell me your 670 number is for more than just a week! - Brian Johns
1.44 (566/391) for brianjohns (after week tally you should see a comma then 'all time' count - I can see it on your page) - Micah
OK, sorry. I'm a total dumbass. I stopped reading after the weekly totals... - Brian Johns
3.74, which seems way off of everybody else's. I wonder what that says. I comment a lot more than I like. - Cyrus Lendvay
FFers use FF with their own strategy or simply default tendencies. The ratio is an interesting snapshot of behaviour. Thanks for joining in everyone, hope more keep flowing in. - Micah from twhirl
0.79 - Brian Roy
0.77 - Shey
0.76 - FFing Enigma
1.39. - Rochelle
1.61 - I only 'like' when I want to throw my support behind a topic but don't have anything constructive to add. - Bjorn Stromberg
1.12 - Tinfoil 2.0
5.08 (3181/626) ! - ◄ani625Ξ ಠ_ಠ
0.66 - I tend to 'like' things without needing to comment further, I guess, and I notice I usually like the things upon which I comment. Well, frequently. - ɐ ɯıʞ sıɹɥɔ
.39 (2457/6242) I guess I don't comment much. I do 'like' a lot of things, it would seem. - Bren
0.62 then again i have over 11,000 comments - Cee Bee
1.23 (5287/4229) - I am put to shame by Cee Bee's participation, good grief! - Lindsay
@Cee Bee I think you meant 0.62 - ◄ani625Ξ ಠ_ಠ
1.27 (902/705) - Leandro Ardissone ⍨
yes, thanks for the correction. lindsay, you're making me feel bad. lol - Cee Bee
0.8576, I only like mostly when I'm going to comment - Molly Song ;)
1.55 endlessly repeating. This Like/Comment included. - Dana D
before this comment: .69 I kid you not. - InPerpetualMotion(Gina k)
So far: Average: 1.27 | Median: 0.81 ... (if you average 1 comment per like, you'd be 1.0 ... if you're 0.xx you might herd content more than discuss ... if you're whole numbers above 1 you may not 'like' much or discuss plenty or both) - Micah
CSV_A: 1.05,0.75,1.44,0.81,3.74,0.79,0.77,0.67,0.77,0.76,1.39,1.8,1.61,1.12,0.141,5.08,2.41,0.66,.39,0.62,.62,1.27,0.8576,1.551,0.69 - Micah
1.83 - Grant Bierman
I tend to like allot of photos which really don't need comments. - InPerpetualMotion(Gina k)
InPerpetualMotion(Gina k), I really liked this 'Like' of yours (in a series of pics, so I flickr fav'd it): and commented. Thanks! - Micah
.37 1002/2708 - Michael Fidler
this is what scobes walls would like if he didnt have FF - sean percival
I haven't seen Marc Canter's fabled fence (just heard about it), but I imagine this but on wood pickets :) - Micah
This week: 2.48 (1162:467) but this is not the norm, my likes usually match or are higher than comments, overall: 0.95 (14228:14846). - Kol Tregaskes
Thanks Michael, Kol! I'll recalculate average/median when we build up some more data points here. - Micah
1.03 748/723 - Keith - @tsudo
.68 6986/10194 Someone wrote a great article on the comment-like ratio a few months ago. Search on FriendFeed is crashing on me... I'll try to get the link. - Mitchell Tsai
Thanks Mitchell (btw, search crashing on me too - lots) - Micah
1316 comments/20221 likes (0.06), according to Windows Calculator, although I probably screwed up. - Tyson Key
*bump* - Micah
Thanks, Mark! - Micah
Thanks Spidra! - Micah
0.95 (1520/1604) - it's 2+ months later, and my ratio flipped (more Likes by .05) - Micah
.7 (1204/1724) - before this comment at least. - Rachel Lea Fox
Thanks, Rachel! - Micah
3.46 (3665/1057) before this comment and like. - Kevin Fox
Thanks, Kevin. 3+ is quite the comment on your commenting activities :) - Micah
I've got stuff to say. - Kevin Fox
3.98 (900/226) - Richard Lawler
1.02 (3538/3484) for sofarsofarshaun - Micah
.34 (600/1747, not counting this comment) - Michael Hocter
Thank you, Siavash and Michael - Micah
.52 overall, but .68 this week. - Rebecca Lasley
Nice, thanks Rebecca. - Micah
1.31 - Rahsheen
0.56 - imabonehead
Rah and imabonehead - rock on! (Richard too!) - Micah
0.16 - Anne Bouey
4.62 (287/62) -- Yikes! I'm chatty. - Ted Roden
Thank you kindly, Anne, jcunwired and Ted. - Micah
2.63 - Bryce Roney
Thanks for joining in, Bryce. - Micah
.15 all time, .13 this week. - Pixie
Thank you, Alix and David! (and Alix, you're tied with Siavash for the Highest Like ratio. Wow). - Micah
2.94 - j1m
Thank you, j1m. Ok, I'm gonna roll this up into a csv and call it a night. - Micah
CSV_B: 0.95,0.7,3.46,3.98,1.02,0.15,0.34,0.52,1.31,0.56,0.16,1.39,4.62,2.63,0.15,0.52,2.94 - Micah
this week = 0.45%, alltime = 6.43% - chaz2b
CSV_B Mean: 1.49 (previous mean for CVS_A: 1.27) - Micah
Of course the numbers can easily lie, but I'm gonna say it anyway: "We're getting more conversational, people!" - Micah
0.49 (493/988) - Bluesun 2600
816 / 2502 = 0.326139089 overall | 50 / 233 = 0.214592275 this week I like much more than I comment. (maths via google) - Chris Loft
3026/5013 = 0.6036 - Roger Chen
chaz2b, Bluesun 2600, Roger, Nicholas — thank you! - Micah
5.25 but I don't know what this *means, yet. maybe I'm just stingy with my "likes" compared to others? - Marg Uerite
Thanks jamar78 and Marg! - Micah
A recent change in FF: now the comment count shows total number of comments (previously multiple comments in one thread only counted as one) so all the numbers above are from the old methodology.... - David HC Soul
My new ratio: 0.76 all time (old methodology .52).... this week 1.39 - David HC Soul
*bump* - Micah
1.26 (2965/2346) - Micah
Thanks, Glen and pea! - Micah
Looks like my ratio as flipped again (comments back to dominating again). Seems to match my own awareness I've lately been commenting without Liking (commenting is my inherent recognition of value to me and the additional Like is when it merits an extra bump to help discovery by others). - Micah
.38 - Ryan Dadey
Ryan, I have to say, that's one high caliber ratio ;) - Micah
An update it's .44 which is an improvement from .36 - Michael Fidler
2.94 1040/354 I have likes set to post to twitter automatically, so I'm careful with them. :) - guruvan (Rob Nelson)
0.85 - Steven Perez
0.73 up from 0.66 on Jan 08 - ɐ ɯıʞ sıɹɥɔ
0.37 for the week past, 0.45 on the whole. - Parth Awasthi
Michael, Anthony, Ahsan, guruvan Steven, sıɹɥɔ and Parth - thanks for dropping in your stats! - Micah
5.81 i'm not using it as does everyone else here. that is fer sure. - Marg Uerite
Ahsan, huh, I'd never considered that. - Micah
17942/30571=.59 - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Alex, thank you, sir. - Micah
ALmost 2:1 exactly. - Amani
Much obliged, Amani. - Micah
3062/5777 you do the maths. - Will Higgins™
.53 (3062/5777) for Will Higgins #math-on-demand-services - Micah
Thank you, amin/gnu - Micah
1.45 (4374/3026) - Micah
0.92 now. I think the movie reviews have been getting me closer to a 1 to 1 ratio. - Steven Perez
Steven, yep, you were a 0.85 in April. - Micah
2.10 now ... - Amani
0.97 now. - Eric Johnson
Amani, so your comments have climbed a bit. - Micah
Thanks, Eric. - Micah
yes, but i am not consciously "not liking" things - Amani from IM
Probably, just chattier then :) - Micah
I'm down from 7.16 to 6.94 :-) - Ken Sheppardson
the live NBA playoff threads have ALOT to do with it. - Amani from IM
Ken, the FCC may be interested to explore how your "I'm down" may be offensively self-deprecating ;) - Micah
.56 eeep, must try harder - Threepwood
4.52. I don't bother to like things I've commented on, since commenting already flags it as interesting. - Andy Bakun
0.46 (1698/3638) - Glenn Slaven
Threepwood, Andy, Glenn - thanks (Andy, that's my mo too; then I'll Like if it warrants a "double vote"). - Micah
1.31 (4,471/3,401) - Karoli
Thanks, Karoli. And the both of us have a _very_ similar ratio and absolute numbers. wow. - Micah
Thanks, Ryo! - Micah
Andy, scroll upward and you'll see a couple calculations from before (January: Average: 1.27 | Median: 0.81) - Micah
In March the Mean was: 1.49 - Micah
1.021276595744680851063829787234042553191489361702127659... via Wolfram Alpha - tom murphy
Thanks, tom. And though a bit verbose, your friend Wolfram is resourceful :D - Micah
0.55 (254/444) - Willem (@wim66) ☠
Thank you, Willem. - Micah
In April you were 0.97, so you're liking more / commenting less. - Micah
1.88 (779/414) - Ton Zijp
Thanks, Ton. - Micah
0.43 (3597/8305). - Parth Awasthi
0.74 (1970/2667) - Blank of Two Blanks
And thank you Parth, Scott. - Micah
Parth, compared to your April numbers, you've been consistent. - Micah
Thanks, Rick! - Micah
.54 (4148/7674) Updated! - Michael Fidler
Rick, you mean that face with glasses I photoshopped tint into with an apparently disembodied arm which is actually very much attached to my eldest son? It's mostly just me :) - Micah
Thanks, Michael. Yes, you have a rising tide of comment percentage (oh, wow, you were one of the originals from January - cool!) - Micah
1.82 from 798 comments / 438 likes - David Damore
Thanks, nivé and David! - Micah
2027/1594 = 1.27 - Brome
0.58 - Marc Dong
2.9 (3,242/1,116) mhhh.. time to straighten my use of FF a bit.. thanks for this entry - Thierry R. Andriamirado
Brome, Marc and Thierry - thank you! - Micah
Thierry - yeah, 2.9 is fairly high - got to pick the pace on like side :) [but hey, whatever works for you is fine] - Micah
1.91 - MiniMage
Thank you Nicholas and MiniMage! - Micah
Yeah, that's a decent upward rise in comments, Nicholas. - Micah
.6 (6,000/10,000) 3rd update - Now it's time to flip this on its head. My goal is to have (16,000/16,000) next time I post here. Regardless of what happens, I'm just looking forward to the next 10,000 comments, likes, posts, and new relationships I make here. It's all good! - Michael Fidler
1.76 (7539/4290) My commenting habits haven't chanced much, but it felt like I clicked Like a lot less, and this ratio confirms that for me. - Micah
It's that time again. - Micah
Thanks, Laura! (you're a 50-caliber gal!) - Micah
0.64 - Imabug
Thank you, Imabug. - Micah
4.67 (I'm greedy :p) - directeur
0.99 - Steven Perez
About 1:2 comment to likes at this time - RAPatton from iPod
.63 - metalerik
Thanks Imabug, directeur, Steven, RAPatton, Jim, Brent and metalerik! - Micah
.83 - Not Me
0.78 - Pete D
.82 as of right now. edit: on January 8th it was 0.39 -- when I saw that, I decided to make more of an effort to comment. When I hit 10k "likes" I decided I wouldn't "like" anything else until I also had 10k comments. - Bren
And thank you Jimminy, Pete, Bren and Penguin! - Micah
2.47 as of right now. - Jonas, Leper of FF
Micah, are you doing something with these numbers? If so sounds interesting. - Not Me
0.58 - Absentee
Jimminy, I'm copyrighting every single number. It's kind of a honeypot ;) Actually, it was curiosity mostly, but I also hope to build a sampling (small and self-selecting as it may be) for anyone who might want to analyze it. - Micah
Jonas, James and Kurt - thanks you! - Micah
You're welcome. I hope the results do some good. :-) - Absentee
.31. I have almost 4 times as many likes as comments. - edythe
Thank you edythe and Eric! - Micah
195/245 makes 0.8 rounded not including this one which would be 196/245 making 0.8 unrounded, - tom murphy
Thanks, Tom. - Micah
1.98 (588/297) - Bryan Zirkel
1.67 (19,550/11,684) - Mitchell Tsai
Bryan, Mitchell and Jeff P. - thanks, guys! - Micah
1.18 - it's always been close to 1, since day one, for some reason. - Laura Norvig
Wow, Penguin is a prolific liker! - Laura Norvig
2.67 (875/328) - Nathalie
Thank you, Nathalie! - Micah
Thanks, Spidra and Mark! - Micah
0.49 - Jammy Lee
Jammy and Mathew, thank you very much. - Micah
I don't know I just like that picture - Brian Hendrickson
.40 - Ben Hanten
Mine was exactly 2:1 about a week ago. Did a screenshot when I had 2,000 comments and 1,000 likes. - Joe - Systems Analyst from iPod
SuezanneC, Brian, B E N and Joe - thank you all very much! - Micah
Joe, it's like see the odometer click through a nice round number - it's just inexplicably engaging. :) - Micah
1.40, nearly the square root of two. - Vezquex
Thanks, Raphael and Andy! - Micah
1.15 (6777/5873) - JA Castillo
12.23 (844 / 69 ) I guess I take my likes seriously ;) - Chris Myles
Wow I didn't realize I was so out of whack!! 12.23 that's got to be a record (and I don't even import my feeds with the summary as a comment)!! - Chris Myles
Thanks JA, Chris (wow, 12+ is unusual :), Serkan and Nine! - Micah
Micah.. I told you I take my likes seriously; ). You *might* want to ask (in a separate post) what percentage of likes were used to "bookmark" a post or save it for later VS actually "liking it". I NEVER used like for that.. but I did use a private group that if filled with my own topics (and comments).. - Chris Myles
1.78 (8529/4782) - Micah
Likes are down relative to comments, which matches my much lower frequency of liking. I'm a more selective liker than ever. - Micah
I don't think I could argue that any particular kind of ratio is "best", because if Lurkers like to Lurk and cultivate (via Likes) and the Chatty-ites love to chat, to pump out much many more comments than Likes, each can be happy and make for a great social experience. - Micah
383/372 - Ashish
'Just clicking "Like" seems too easy' — Jason, that's because you're from the Chatty-ite tribe :) - Micah
Thanks, ashish. - Micah
wow, what a difference time makes, when i 1st posted on this thread, 6.43%, now = 1.25%, for a 5.18% difference, :o (and this is the earliest post to date i've recovered of my activity on ff) - chaz2b
chaz, I think there's been a big fluctuation for most people (maybe not that much). This is the oldest post on which you commented that you've recovered? - Micah
When I first saw this: 1.91 Sept 28: 1.94 - MiniMage
536 comments in the last month has me at .8736...still creeping toward 1.00 - Bren
Thanks, MiniMage (2x participant!), Bren (3x!) and Shannon (your inaugural visit!) - Micah
Thank you, SustainedEuphoria. - Micah
Thanks, Mark. - Micah
1.45 - Brett Kelly
Thanks, Brett :) - Micah
5.67 all time. Second highest ratio on here. Woot! I love to talk. - Kevin L
Thank you both, Kevin and mridul (the two of you balance it each well :) - Micah
1.80 (10,189 / 5,666) [compared to Likes, my Comments still continue to rise] - Micah
1.02 (10323/10161) - Bren
.5666 currently (30,084/53,093) - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Thanks, Bren. - Micah
Thank you, Alex :) - Micah
that was my third post... It's interesting to see how the number has changed. of course, I manipulated the number to a degree, because I stopped "liking" things for a while... - Bren
Bren, the other thing that can seriously throw off someone's stats is a feed that upon each item it imports adds a comment automatically. - Micah
true. that can seriously inflate comment stats, of course. Then you have someone like RAPatton, who posts a gazillion comments, in part because of his playlist posts where he will list each song in a separate comment. I found, after this post in fact, that I tended to "like" things much more frequently than comment on them, that I was lurking instead of participating. I have changed the way I use ff rather considerably, and I think for the better. - Bren
Thanks, Sarah, Tutivillus. - Micah
1.19 - Joe Bonner
Micah this is like 11 months ago, I see you have almost doubled your rate. lets make a graph for everybody now, :) - ۳۰ مرغ Loves Y'ALLLLL
Quick, someone write a greasemonkey script to inline some google charts! (tap-tap-tap...wut? don't look at me ;) - Micah
Thanks, Joe. And you thank you, Mahmood :) - Micah
Thanks, Glen! Your comments in the ratio have gone up too. - Micah
1.70 (it was 1.41 on Jan 8) - WoH: Professor MOTHRA
WorldofHiglet, thank you :) The comments are strong in this one. - Micah
0.64 (2,589/4,051) - Chieze Okoye
0.58 - Thomas Page
Chieze and Thomas - thank you! - Micah
*bumpage* - Micah
So, Micah, we never did find out what you were doing with this info.... - WoH: Professor MOTHRA
0.27 (5637/20234) - I only see a couple people lower than me. - John (bird whisperer)
4.06 (747/184) - Jan Ole Peek
WoH, World Domination. - Micah
Rene, John and Jan - thank you, all three! :) - Micah
0.97 (6,694/6,929) - Not Me
Thank you J., Jimminy and آقای تلخک :) - Micah
2.23 - Paola Bonomo
0.71 (8,200/11,551) updated - Michael Fidler
0.03 (284 / 10378)! - Daniel Rowley
Thanks Paola, Michael, Artemko, J. and Daniel! - Micah
*thanks Christopher thoroughly* - Micah
14.86 (1442/97) I'm going the wrong way!! - Chris Myles
1.77 (11831/6622) - Micah
0.56 (2059/3703) - Joel Webber
0.89 (1,766/1,986) - chrisofspades
Thanks, Joel and Chris! - Micah
In 4 days it will be 1 year since my first recorded stat here. My comments/like were almost a 1:1 ratio then. Now comments are almost double likes for me. - Micah
jamar78, same trend for you, it looks. :) - Micah
1.00 a year later. {edit -- screwed it up the first time. not telling what I did.} - Jim is digging out.
Thanks, Jim! - Micah
.52 this year. - LB: Ratchet Bear
Thank you, Laura =) - Micah
75,415 comments/1,286 likes = 58.64 - i wish the auto inserted comments didn't get counted... the true number is probably much much close ot my number of likes - Chris Heath
1.09 (11910/10953) - Bren
1.97%. thanks again micah, this has been a great metric to measure my first year here on ff. As the year went (this being the first record of me being here that i've found): , 6.43%:1.25%:1.97% - chaz2b
Chris, Bren, thank you. And chaz2b, thank you too - glad it's a special marker for you. :) - Micah
1.79 (13620/7618) - Micah from iPhone
0.91 - Bruce Lewis
0.13 - Morton Fox
1.69 now (1.70 on Nov 10th and 1.41 on Jan 8, 2009) - - WoH: Professor MOTHRA
0.23 - Mark H
Thanks Bruce, Morton, Higlet, Brent and Mark! - Micah from iPhone
How is this thread doing in the longest-lived-ff-comment-thresds-ever contest? - j1m
5.76 right now - Kevin L
0.53 - Rodfather
j1m, I wonder how many threads over a year old are regularly updated by an asoetment of users. - Micah from iPhone
Kevin, Cecily and Rodfather - thanks! - Micah from iPhone
1.49 (2,222/1488) - DB, Lil LB's Dad
"I must not ask Micah questions" written out a bajillion times.... :) - WoH: Professor MOTHRA
LOL @Higlet - Correct. (but Brent, you can also ask the Mathematics Dept of West Bohemian University in Pilsen, Czech [via ]) - Micah
0.32 (2011/6291) Looks like I need to comment more. =) - Beau Liening
Thank you, Beau. And, by stating you want to comment more you're already helping the cause :) - Micah
2.09329564 (10366:4952) I don't think that I'm the norm here - See-ming Lee 李思明 SML
*bump* - It's that time again, folks. - Micah
1.71 (16,017/9,357) - Micah
0.91 (13,933/15,222) - Not Me
2.66 - Marissa
1.48 (2,469/1,669) - DB, Lil LB's Dad
Thanks, Jimminy, Marissa and Daryl. :) - Micah
1.21 - Jenny
Thanks, Jenny! - Micah
1.10 (4874/4448) - DGentry
2.13(7957/3734) - Melanie Reed
Thank you, Denton, Glen and Melanie! - Micah
63.58 (97,534/1,534) -- interesting that my last three digits are the same there, eh? (note, i already posted a month or two ago when i first saw this thread) - Chris Heath
Thanks, Chris! - Micah
0.87 (3770/4312), so I'm either getting more commenty or less likey. [0.74 (1970/2667) was what I previously reported back in June] - Blank of Two Blanks
Thanks Scott, pea and T. Brent. - Micah
Brent, interesting. Look forward to more commentary. :) - Micah
1433/1161 = 1.23 - cdogzilla | downgraded
1.19 (5132/4316) - Ruchira S. Datta
Thank you, cdogzilla and Ruchira! - Micah
0.94(15045/15978) 0.83, (28.August.2009); 0.97, (11.Nov.2009); 0.91, (17.April.2010); 0.94, (11.May.2010). - Not Me
1.65 (18,070 / 10,970) - Micah
*bump* It's that time again, folks. - Micah
1.05 (1710/1625) - cdogzilla | downgraded
1.66 here. Chattyites 4ever! - Lo
Thanks cdogzilla and Lo! - Micah
Last year my comments were around 7000 and likes around 2500, for a ratio of 2.80. I consciously chose to do more liking over the last year. As of today my comments number 10,782 and likes number 7,666, for a ratio of 1.41. - Stephen Mack
Jason, Stephen - cool. Thanks for keeping updated here. :) - Micah
Thanks, RG - Micah
1.03. Micah you've made over 18000 comments since you first posted this. - chrisofspades
0.76 (3,624/4,766) Egad that's only .1 improvement since 2009-01-08 :-P but at least it's moving in the right direction. - ɐ ɯıʞ sıɹɥɔ
3.25 No wonder I always had to stand in the hall in school for talking ;-) - Shannon - GlassMistress
Still right at 1:1. W00t. - Jim is digging out.
1.15 (14662/12739) - Bren
chrisofspades, crazy isn't it. :) - Micah
kima, tortoise wins and all that ;) Thanks, Shannon. Jim, you have maintained balanced in the force you have. Thanks, Bren. - Micah
2.33 :( my new yr's resolution was to "like" more, imma not doing sucha good job, :( - chaz2b
Thanks, Mark, and chaz, you'll get there. :) - Micah
1.61 (20,661 / 12,818) - Micah
*BUMP* - It's that time again. THANKS! - Micah
1.76 (15,652/8,886) - Jenny
Thanks, Jenny and hollyrai! - Micah
Thank you, Glen. - Micah
0.77 - Steven Perez
0.31 (14566/47299) - John (bird whisperer)
John, you're a 'liking' fool! :D - Jenny
Apparently I'm the human version of FALOB - John (bird whisperer)
Ha! (and thanks, John) - Micah
Double ha! - Jenny
Thank you Steven. - Micah
2.28 - Jesse Stay
1.66 (updated) - Eric - Watch Me Now
Thanks Scott, Jesse, Eric and holly! - Micah
58,144/3,749=15.509, basically due to multiple feed imports. - Daniel Mietchen
*BUMP* - Micah
1.60 (22,066/13,819) - Micah
:) @Jason. - Micah
0.69 - Absentee
0.76 - Steven Perez
slightly off of my usual this time: 1.01 - Jim is digging out.
Thanks James, Steven and Jim "STAY-ON-TAR-GET" Jannotti. :) - Micah
.98(20,405/20,834) - Not Me
1.36 (20684/15224) - Bren from iPhone
Thank you, Jimminy, Greg and Bren! - Micah
1.88 (21954/11691) Chatty Cathy, apparently. - Jenny
11289/9010 = 1.25 (wonder if some comments are from imported feeds) - Mike Chelen
Thanks Jenny and Mike. :) - Micah
Sorry - Micah .... but the math is just too complicated :) - Charlie Anzman
Charlie, I'm make it simple. I'll do the talking, you drive the get-away car—we'll split it even: 80/20. - Micah
Damn, More Homework. - Brent - Yes I am
including this comment (119,119C/1677L) ... 71.03 - Chris Heath
1.21 - Joe Bonner
1.56 (24,076/15,472) - Micah
*BUMP* - it's that time again. Also, I passed 24K comments recently. - Micah
Thanks, Micahel. - Micah
113,457 comments / 166,887 likes = .68 - RAPatton
2.02 (31627/15675) I need to start liking more and shut the hell up. - Jenny
1:1.618, of course. - Josh Haley from iPhone
2.60 - Jack&Cleo
I was waiting for that from you, Mr. Haley. - Lisa L. Seifert from Android
Those are some heavy hitter numbers there, RAPatton. Thanks. :) - Micah
I've been on FF for a long time, Michah, because I am really, really old. - RAPatton
LOL Josh. These aren't the maths you looking for. [lateral hand wave] - Micah
Jenny, do not take your own advice; not advisable. - Micah
Thanks, Jack & Cleo. - Micah
RAPatton, you're not old—you triple-comment-excerpt every bookmarklet post :)) - Micah
Cristo, this post is an ancient relic. Handle with care. - Micah
0.13 - Morton Fox
Okay, Micah. <----I had to resist the urge not to post that because I know it's going to up my comment count. ;) - Jenny
But how many of those primordial, high interest posts are still active. Uh huh. :) - Micah
Thanks, Morton. BTW, when you posted in February, it was exactly 0.13 also. - Micah
Jenny, resistance is futile; embrace the rising tide of comments. - Micah
Comments are more difficult and time consuming than Likes. I'd be happy about a high comment:likes ratio except that many are surely imported from feeds, while every Like is manual. - Mike Chelen
it has changed to 2.2256 now as Sep, 6 2010.Labor Day. :) I added the date for future references. - ۳۰ مرغ Loves Y'ALLLLL
IN HONOUR OF DERRICK'S 100,000th LIKE: - Micah
1.54 (25,102/16,257) - Micah
Thanks, Alex. - Micah
2.29.... 26 HR, 89 RBI - .LAG liked that
.15 on March 21, 2009. Now .19. - Pixie
Thanks, MarkJ, .LAG and Alix! :) - Micah
Thank you, Deepak! - Micah
1.47 (24757/16749) - Bren
I make a lot of comments but no one like me, so I guess the ratio is infinite or undefined. - Sue - Friendfeed is best
1.45 (29653/20444) *BUMP* - Micah
1.22 (31900/26233) - holly #ravingfangirl
.59 (58,923/99,251) - Scoble, Alex Scoble
6.61 (2825/427 )... I'm a wee bit chatty - Shannon - GlassMistress
I had exactly a 2:1 ratio as previously reported [Aug 30, '09], now I am at: 1.7241:1 ratio. 6,067 comments to 3,519 likes. - Joe - Systems Analyst
0.79 as of 6 Jan 2011. - John E. Bredehoft
my brain hurts - Morgan
Two years later and my ratio has climbed from 3.4 to 4.675. I've got a lot to say, apparently. - Kevin Fox
Funnily, I didn't notice until after leaving that comment that when I reported my stat in 2009 I also followed it up with "I've got stuff to say." I didn't say it was *new* stuff... - Kevin Fox
1.000 (27093/27080) - Not Me
I've had an improvement since the last few times this has come up. I was .49 or close to it, now I'm running a .57 ratio - Bluesun 2600
1.68 (55826/33281) - Jenny
81.1 - rising consistently - Chris Heath
I think this is the oldest thread I see that still gets new comments added. - Sue - Friendfeed is best
*BUMP* - Micah
1.40 (32175/22968) - Micah
I dunno, I'm not good with math - sofarsoShawn
0.35 ... Apparently I'm not very talkative. - John (bird whisperer)
Thanks, John and Shawn. - Micah from FFHound(roid)!
1.459 (33067/22667) - Bren from iPhone
looks familiar... - WoH: Professor MOTHRA
2.6 (wow, this thread is like my yearly checkup; thanks micah and friendfeed, 3+years and going strong [6.4%, 2.33%]) - chaz2b
1.02 (38,615, 37,927) 9/27/11 - Not Me
1.29 (36,959 / 28,580) - Micah
Thanks, Jimminy, Bren, WoH, and chaz2b. :) - Micah
.46 now. :) - LB: Ratchet Bear
Thank you, LB. - Micah
0.33 (34741/105115) - John (bird whisperer)
Thanks John. Gracias, caj. - Micah
1.57 (24,460/15,624). It was 1.12 the day after the OP. - Tinfoil 2.0
The likes dim and comms brim. - Micah
2.91; 6.43% (@ 2yrs ago) 2.33% (@ 1yr ago). for history's sake, this thread was started shortly after i found friendfeed, or friendfeed found me, so it holds a special place in my heart. thanks for keeping it around mr micah - chaz2b
You're certainly welcome, chaz2b. In some way it feels like a living heirloom to me. :) - Micah
*BUMP* - Micah
1.25 (40,008/31,895) - Micah
1.15 - Kristin
1.41 - Melly
5.12 - Julian
3 (2.991) (and now the list has become too lengthy for me to track my progress, ;) [dumb me, i have a post not 10 lines ago in history, from 090711 2.91; 6.43% (@ 2yrs ago) 2.33% (@ 1yr ago) ;) ] - chaz2b
.79 - Shevonne
24 072 / 35 095 = 0.685909674 - AJ Batac
0,77 (before and after this comment) - loi
2.65 (69,814 comments/26,281 likes) - Spidra Webster
1.51 = 28,196/18,717. Was 1.57 in Sept 2011 and 1.12 in Jan 2009. - Tinfoil 2.0
*BUMP* - Micah
0.174 (6966/40022) - Not much of a talker. - Kevin Johnson
1.23 (41,476 / 33,845) - Micah
1.43 - Tamara J. B.
.15 on March 21, 2009, .19. on September 18, 2010, and .22 today (March 8, 2012). - Pixie
*BUMP* for Ross - Micah
2.83 - Ross Miller
1.97 on 2012-04-24 - ؛ patrick
0.99 (44,752, 45,200) 4/24/11 || 0.83, (?, ?), (28.August.2009); 0.97, (6,694, 6,929), (11.Nov.2009); 0.91, (13,933, 15,222), (17.April.2010); 0.94, (15,045, 15,978), (11.May.2010); .98, (20,405, 20,834), (03.August.2010); 1.00, (27,093, 27,080), (06.January.2011); 1.02, (38,615, 37,927), (27.September.2011); 0.99 (44,752, 45,200), (24.April.2012); - Not Me
0.90 - Uli
1.6 - AJ Batac
1.34 Did you finish all your profiling yet, Micah? - WoH: Professor MOTHRA
1.22 (42,526 / 34,975) - Micah
Glad to see you here, Ross. Thanks for the updates everyone. WoH, the master plan is coming together nicely. - Micah
Excellent *steeples fingers* - WoH: Professor MOTHRA
*staples fingers* - John (bird whisperer)
Hmm, can you order finger-steeples on Amazon? - Micah
*readies the Band-Aids* - WoH: Professor MOTHRA
Micah: I can sell you some, cheap. Just fax your credit card, SIN and maiden name to the usual number. - WoH: Professor MOTHRA
My facsimile machine is in dry dock at the moment, but I'll pigeon over a small scroll with all the requisite datums. - Micah
Done and done. - WoH: Professor MOTHRA
0.31 <-- about the same as usual - John (bird whisperer)
After the last 19+ hours, it's high time to log-in your stats again. - Micah
1.20 (45878 / 38084) - Micah
1.54 (32,913 comments / 21,412 likes) - Tinfoil 2.0
Thanks, Tinfoil. - Micah
Try dividing by zero and find out ( ) - Micah
1.04 (10778 / 10303) - DB, Lil LB's Dad
Thanks, DB. - Micah
Currently 0.3. - John (bird whisperer)
Thanks, John. - Micah
1.01 (47,240, 46,956) 9/13/12 || 0.83, (?, ?), (28.August.2009); 0.97, (6,694, 6,929), (11.Nov.2009); 0.91, (13,933, 15,222), (17.April.2010); 0.94, (15,045, 15,978), (11.May.2010); .98, (20,405, 20,834), (03.August.2010); 1.00, (27,093, 27,080), (06.January.2011); 1.02, (38,615, 37,927), (27.September.2011); 0.99 (44,752, 45,200), (24.April.2012); 1.01, (47,240, 46,956), (14.September.2012); - Not Me
Thanks, Jimminy and Zulema. - Micah
BUMP - in honor of Kevin's 8K comment threshold. - Micah from FFHound(roid)!
.38 - March 15, 2013 - Jennifer Dittrich
0.279 (58096/208087) - John (bird whisperer)
0.172283 (8005/46464) - Kevin Johnson
0.75 (38,250 comments / 50,175 likes) (My entry above from 2 years ago said I had 10,782 comments and 7,666 likes for a ratio of 1.41. I've been busy, and my pattern seems to have changed.) - Stephen Mack
Thanks, Jennifer, John, Kevin and Stephen. :) - Micah from FFHound(roid)!
0.51 (6,883/13,438) - Stephan Planken from iPhone
5.72, though I deleted my first account, like, 3 years ago - Meg VMeg
1.03 (51,436, 50,018) 3/15/13 || 0.83, (?, ?), (28.August.2009); 0.97, (6,694, 6,929), (11.Nov.2009); 0.91, (13,933, 15,222), (17.April.2010); 0.94, (15,045, 15,978), (11.May.2010); .98, (20,405, 20,834), (03.August.2010); 1.00, (27,093, 27,080), (06.January.2011); 1.02, (38,615, 37,927), (27.September.2011); 0.99 (44,752, 45,200), (24.April.2012); 1.01, (47,240, 46,956), (14.September.2012); 1.03 (51,436, 50,018), (15.March.2013); - Not Me
.44. I guess I'm getting lazy. - LB: Ratchet Bear
2.22. I use YouFeed a lot, and liking takes an inordinate amount of time on the app.... - RudĩϐЯaЯïan
3.10 up from 2.83 a year ago. - Ross Miller
Thanks, Ross. - Micah from FFHound(roid)!
BUMP - Micah from FFHound(roid)!
1.07 - Kristin
1.03 - Bren from iPhone
1.90 - JAson FLeming from Android
This thread is amazing. What a treasure trove of information - Bren from iPhone
0.62 (5077/8197) as of 4/29/13 - Betsy
2.49 today - Marissa
1.0591 Comments per like (16,230 / 15,324). - Joe - Systems Analyst
0.47 (10,057/21,354) - Zu from AOD
Why people do not comment online articles? What is wrong with the online commenting system? I think this is one of the central issues in Science 2.0. Here is the test case, which is very demonstrative:
Definitely a blog post in this but I would say the answer is simple - the commentary feeds off itself, you need a community in place for that to happen and there isn't any such community at the PLoS ONE site. The existing community provides people (obviously) but also context and a space which isn't empty. Comes back to the issue of modularity of contributions as well. But bottom line, the people are here (and probably elsewhere in coffee rooms etc) so the conversation happens here. - Cameron Neylon
Exactly. The conversation will happen where the people are. It's up to the publishers to figure out how to harness those conversations. Given the API, and the activity here on FF, would be cool to pull those discussions into the article itself. - Deepak Singh
If you study carefully the test case above, you will see that there are two characteristic features 1) It is easier to start a discussion where the people are (but for that it is enough just to send a link here, and discuss there), and 2) people obviously do not want to disclose their real names under critical comments. This suggests to me that the current PLoS commenting system is wrong in forcing people to register before the post, and not allowing anonymous comments. - genereg
I think its been established pretty strongly now through things like OpenWetWare and other sites that completely anonymous commenting is probably not helpful or desirable in science. Those sites that strongly encourage or require the use of "real names" see little or no vandalism, and it could be argued, a more constructive approach to discussion. I admit to being conflicted about the... more... - Cameron Neylon
But the people here at FF, they _are_ very online persons. They know all details on how to comment and so on. Still, they choose not to comment under their real names, and are very upset when their critical comments appear to be linked to a wider online audience. Afterall, scientific reviews have _always_ been anonymous, and there is no reason why online reviews should not be anonymous... more... - genereg
How do you reach that assumption? I know the real names of pretty much all of them, and most of us have "handles" that are associated with names. Online anonymity is becoming a strict no-no pretty fast. - Deepak Singh
That is why FF is NOT anonymous. But people who feel safe here (perhaps because it is not that easy to search, an so on) do not feel safe to expose their names on the _publicly_ available web site, where their comments will be associated with the article forewer - genereg
"people obviously do not want to disclose their real names under critical comments" What's your evidence for this? Me? I am fine with making critical comments under my own name -- it's not as though I thought the FF thread was magically invisible to everyone but my BFFs. I'd prefer to word things a bit differently in direct comment to an author (specifically, I'd explain why the lack of... more... - Bill Hooker
I am still a little confused by how you can reach that conclusion on anonymous commenting. There seems to be no real evidence or suggestion for that. Yes there are people afraid of online commenting in general, but that's a general problem. Those people don't show up on Friendfeed either - Deepak Singh
The test case above was at the FF. The people there are both _online_ people, and experts, and interested in commenting on that particular article. But they are still afraid to comment on public. - genereg
@Bill, read the last comments in that thead by Ian York - genereg
Ah, missed Ian's last couple of comments -- genereg, I think you're reaching if you are putting Ian's part in that thread forward as evidence for your claims about anonymity, too. I'm all for anonymity being available to those who want/need it, but I don't think it's any kind of answer to why article commenting hasn't taken off. - Bill Hooker
Genereg, I think you are misintepreting Ian's comment (although I'm not sure and I have asked him on that thread). I think he is making a point about asking permission before re-publishing but he makes it very clear that there is nothing "wrong" with re-publishing just that doing it to (perhaps) make a point is a bit impolite. - Cameron Neylon
In addition, I personally, would not comment that article at PLoS One under my real name. One of the reasons would be that I don't want my name to be associated with THAT article. - genereg
In addition, I do know a number of articles which I would like to comment (and I am quite an _online_ person to figure out how to do this) but I don't comment just for the reason that it requires a registration - genereg
I'd guess the difference is to a large extent due to the way PLoS One and FF are set up. PLoS One allows comments, FF is set up for commenting. FF has more comments, but they're also more ephemeral. Comments that are going to sit on my paper should be well thought of and not pesky one-liners. As such, maybe linking from the biophotonics paper to FF was a mistake. OTOH, I'd want all 'activity' somehow linked to my paper, but in a different way. - Björn Brembs
"The test case above was at the FF. The people there are both _online_ people, and experts, and interested in commenting on that particular article. But they are still afraid to comment on public." ... I am not sure how that last conclusion was made. Pretty much all of us (there will always be exceptions) are more than happy to be public with disagreements regardless of forum. It's just that much more convenient to discuss here - Deepak Singh
@Deepak, Pretty much all of us would be happy to be on public with positive or neutral comments, but honest comments on the artticles are in most cases critical... That is why the standard way the peer-review goes is through anonymous systems. - genereg
Key is --- little comments on PLOS, but many here on FF ... because the (trusted) people (in your network) are here, so the conversation happens here. --- How to move this? Backlinking FF on PLOS should be technically possible? Which FF tracks are discussing this article? A little bit like natures, which blogs are discussing this article. - joergkurtwegner
genereg, that's a very narrow point of view and does not reflect my experience. We are providing public peer review, if you want to call it that. As scientists we are quite happy providing "critical" reviews at conferences and posters, it's not like that people are necessarily averse - Deepak Singh
I think jkw has pin-pointed the most interesting question (also mentioned by Bjoern and several others): how can PLoS pull in value from conversations happening elsewhere? I think it would be a great idea if every PLoS article had a "conversations" tab as well as a "comments" tab, and under "conversations" provided links to, or inline versions of, all the commentary online in blogs, FriendFeed, etc etc. A one-stop shop for "who is talking about this article?". - Bill Hooker
There is a point in this that echoes what Eric Weinstein says about "going short" or long on an idea. The concept that peer review fails precisely because there is no personal consequences for rejecting a paper and getting that wrong. Eric uses the language of hedge funds to suggest that people should be required to "unwind their positions" - which absolutely requires identity and... more... - Cameron Neylon
I think PLoS is interested in pulling this commentary in to the article space. It would be a great way of connecting up commentary. I think it is technically non-trivial but it also raises the issue of how you might summarise or aggregate the commentary in a machine readable and parseable form. Sure it is helpful seeing a lot of people saying something is great or rubbish, but how do you present that in a way that makes it possibel to triage 50 papers to find the one you're after? - Cameron Neylon
If you want (noisy) links, just use Google with link:to_article, e.g. . This does not give quality backlinks, and also not any real-time information like FF. So, some additional comment semantics (microblog, blog?), grouping (Wordle?), or central service is required (FF,Twitter). - joergkurtwegner
All our talks about some kind of federated comment system in the past year or so have ended up with "we need a researcherID to incentivize people". That's the opposite of anonymity. Would G Bilder care to comment on how things are going on that front? - Mr. Gunn
You guys don't believe me, but here it is -- a simple solution to the question why people do not comment online articles. Allow anonymous comments (no IP tracking, no registration requirements) and you will get at least 1 comment per 100 views of each article. That is a lot, and enough to get the system working. I am telling this both as an active scientist and as a person with ~10 year experience of online administration and moderation. It is very easy to check this idea. - genereg
I think there's different kinds of comments - some throwaway comments, some are metacommentary, some are spam, and some are thoughtful and considered reviews. The PLoS appspot comment categorization experiment that was done a while back showed this. - Mr. Gunn
PLoS has a hard enough time staying afloat. Aggregating comments like is suggested here would be a full time job for someone over at PLoS. Yes, there are software solutions, but most of them require human editting or verification. FWIW, guest commenting is a must for starting any on-line community. Having to register is a gigantic barrier to building a critical mass of users. Get the guest comments and conversations going first and once the community gels, people will WANT to register. - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces
Nature Network is probably the example they have in mind here, Brian. Am I correct that it takes more time to moderate the craziness in open discussion than it does to assemble aggregated content? - Mr. Gunn
It is clear that in the majority of cases conversations dont natually happen at the journal site itself. Therefore, PLoS would ideally like to aggregate all the externally located conversations that happen *about* a paper, *onto* the paper. In this way, a reader would use the paper as the launching off point - they read it, and then follow links from it to read the relevant conversations. If the 3rd parties allow it, then the text of those conversations could also be imported to the journal site. - Peter Binfield
The only problem is how to reliably link the paper to an external conversation that could have happened anywhere, without any consistent linking protocol, and at any time from the day of publication onwards. They dont all happen on FF I am afraid (some of the Darwinius discussions appeared on Wargaming bulletin boards!). This is a problem that we have some ideas about, and that we are working on... - Peter Binfield
You still don't believe that just removing the mandatory registration is enough to get the comments system working at the journal web site.... Well here is one more argument: look at the web site of BMJ, and compare how much more frequent is commenting there in comparison with PLoS. The ONLY difference is that BMJ does not require mandatory registration for posting comments:... more... - genereg
@genereg: how many man-hours and dollars does BMJ spend on moderation of their comment system? See: Revitalising rapid responses Davies and Delamothe BMJ.2005; 330: 1284 - Bill Hooker
compare: to that is, compare 2% to 18% (of papers commented on in BMC vs. PLoS ONE). - Bora Zivkovic
BMJ is the British Medical Journal, not to be confused with BMC. BMC is the same as PLoS from the point of view that you need to register in order to comment. - genereg
sorry, not meant to imply they are the same, just to point out that commenting on ONE is not shabby and the only available comparison is that to BMC. - Bora Zivkovic
Note also that you don't have to register for BMJ but you do have to send your comment by email, providing an email address and name, current occupation and place of work (including postcode). Perhaps you could try making up fake info and see if it gets published, but I'd say simply registering once under a carefully guarded netonym would be easier and safer. - Bill Hooker
@Bill, I was just able to sumit a post to BMJ with the word test in all fields, and it takes ~30 sec. It's not by email. Their submission form is the simplest form that one can imagine, you can fill whatever, and finally there is a simple antispam filter, that's it. No registration, no email validation. - genereg
Where'd you comment? I bet it won't be published. - Bill Hooker
I did not press the "submit" button, so it would not publish. It takes 30 sec to do everything before pressing the final submit button. As I said, then it depends on the moderation policy, whether the journal has a premoderation or postmoderation, I don't know what they have, both options are OK. - genereg
As far as I can tell it's pre-mod, and I don't think Dr Ano Nymus, email, is going to appear in the BMJ rapid responses any time soon. I'd love to know if they require email validation. To be clear though: I'm in no way against anonymous commenting, even if it does have its problems. BMJ had to tighten its moderation policy considerably, but only after about the 50, 000th... more... - Bill Hooker
"and get the community growing" -- the obvious thing is that the "community" which might be willing to comment on the online articles is the Whole Scientific Community. Most people today get articles from the web, not from the local libraries, so it is not a problem for them to comment online if there are no artificial barriers such as a mandatory registration. Something like 1 comment... more... - genereg
Genereg - I think I agree with you on one point, which is that signon for all these things could be a lot easier. Setting up yet another account is a pain and we need better systems for that. But my belief is, and I think this is backed up by a growing amount of experience, that anonymity in particular destroys trust in conversations and leads to a very poor quality of discussion. In... more... - Cameron Neylon
Cameron, suppose, the comment under the article says "you guys have to reshuffle the axes on Figure 2. He-he :)". You look at the article and realize that indeed the axis X refers to Y and axis Y refers to X, so they should be reshuffled. And you might not notice that without the anonymous comment under the article. Does it make any difference for you, who has made that comment? - genereg
It might make a difference to how much attention I paid in the first place - but my argument is that those helpful comments would be totally outweighed by comments like "man, your colour choices are so bad, which idiot did you get to make that graph?" - or the cost of moderating those out would rise to unsustainable levels. First law of comment forums - you can have anonymous commenting... more... - Cameron Neylon
I think that comments like "man, your colour choices are so bad, which idiot did you get to make that graph?" would be absolutely OK if rephrased "I think the color choice is wrong". The moderation policy may depend on the journal, but in general, both the Netiquette and Scientific Ethics are well-developed things, they can be written down explicitly as the rules for the moderators, and... more... - genereg
I'm guessing we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The nice thing being of course that as we are scientists we can hopefully agree once there is some evidence in! :-) I definitely would agree with the argument that we need more experimentation in this space - Cameron Neylon
"First law of comment forums - you can have anonymous commenting or unmoderated commenting, you can't have both" -- In fact, I have seen many online communities, where both anonymous commenting, registered commenting and different types of moderation perfectly coexist. - genereg
definitely some scientists really afraid give a critical comments online, just because of academia and grants system (in US at least) is fucked up (in case if author of paper that you critically commented on will be you peer-reviewer in future...)! For me also could be a problem, because i'm a postdoc and my blog reading some professors(on whose papers i can comment) who going to review my papers and grants in the future. - Alexey
I express some of my thoughts here - - Alexey
I disagree that commenting for scientific analytical blogs should be anonymous, because blog content should be updatable and readers should trust information that they see. In this case it's important to link to the comment associated with particular name in the field to estimate how much we can trust this information. - Alexey
Alexey, I agree on blogs, but blogs is a different story, blogs are mostly for self-promotion and self-expression, while comments on scientific articles are mainly to fix scientific problems. The motivation to fix a scientific mistake is usually strong enough to do this even anonymously. - genereg
If there were an easy solution to this, it would have been solved already. Many, many very smart people have tried to fix this already. I think, like Cameron says, we're more or less waiting for the transition to where online comments matter. To where they're taken seriously, to where they have an effect on the overall profile of your research. To where the argument can be made that... more... - Mr. Gunn
Mr. Gunn, I understand your point about the importance of self-promotion and career track, but I think that commenting online articles has nothing to do with this. - genereg
So you think your blog and your online presence have nothing to do with your career? Why post your CV on your blog, then? Nobody that matters will see it, right? - Mr. Gunn
I don't understand completely why scientists afraid to comment papers online under their real names. I do comment on PLoS and Nature under my real name even i have a some risks as a postdoc. It's everything about your scientific authority. I want professionals in the field to know me. - Alexey
Mr. Gunn, Blog as I said is a self-expression, and self-promotion, but comments at online journals are not. PS. Please read my message concerning your blog post! - genereg
I'll do that, but you probably want to go back through your comments here and remove all the ones where you linked to your own blog. - Mr. Gunn
Alexey, are you sure you can say everything you want there under your name? As you said, you consider some risks for you as a postdoc. Now, assume that your risks as a postdoc are minor in comparison with the risks of a senior scientist, where there are million-dollar grants on stock. - genereg
@genereg , @Cameron - I am not interested in anonymous comments. I am an industry person working in drug development, which is probably one of the most intellectual property sensitive industries. So, anonymous comments? Not for me, even not in my private time ! If you want comments from people in industry, then we seriously need a review mechanism, not only by the blog owner, but a... more... - joergkurtwegner
We have just witnessed a next round of the test case, with my own name not associated with my FF account being found in the internet and posted in a blog article discussing this thread . Not a big deal. However, this opens up a new large series of questions... more... - genereg
genereg, perhaps the misunderstanding lies in the fact that you thought you were anonymous but you really never were. I didn't go searching the internet for your name - you linked directly to your blog from here. There are ways of being anonymous on the internet if that's what you really want. What your doing seems to me the equivalent to leaving your house open and unlocked, telling... more... - Mr. Gunn
Mr. Gunn, I am never hiding my identity, but it is also not directly associated with my profile. This means that I am safe in terms of the search engines, and my real name is associated only with things with which I want it to be associated. That is also true, if you are commenting a strange (wrong) journal article: even if you are right and they are wrong, your name will be forefer associated with that wrong article. - genereg
Unless you got out of your way to make it so, anonymity does not exist, so we should probably just get over it and worry more about being presentable. I'll offer myself up as an example - Search for either William Gunn or Mr. Gunn and try to find something embarrassing about me. Go ahead, I'll wait. - Mr. Gunn
LOL I am too old for these games. And I know Internet. And Science. The real anonymity is impossible even with anonymous peer-review. But there are a lot of reasons to have _some degree_ of anonymity in science and in the internet. It just works like this. It can't work without this. - genereg
genereg, on that last issue I have to disagree. If we want to use the web in general to discuss science, it's very difficult to separate the two. Google is not going to index you separately as a scientist and as a web participant. Well, it might, but managing that level of identity is hard, and one could argue that the two shouldn't be completely separated, just the communities might... more... - Deepak Singh
Deepak, I understand the point. However, here are additnial 5 cents, why anonymous commenting might help. At some point, there was an evaluation of BMC comments, and it revealed, if I am not wrong, only 17% critical comments. while in an anonymous peer-review most of the comments are critical. Thus, even if we forget about the decreased number of online comments due to the registration... more... - genereg
genereg, if this statistics is correct, that show to me how immature the scientists and science online. They afraid to disclose their name and status because of money-grants-career and poke each other by critical anonymous commenting like a kids in the sand box. Be open, be confident in your data and expertise scientists, be able to accept critical comments and reply nicely and be able... more... - Alexey
You are assuming that comments must be critical to be useful. Useful comments can include questions, concerns, and criticisms, and even the latter can be framed properly. I have said this before, and I will reiterate that there is one primary reason for anonymity; that you're afraid of making a fool of yourself in public. I admit that this fear might be related to concerns about your... more... - Deepak Singh
genereg, yea I can tell not everything from my blog, but a lot. I criticize a lot, but if i'm wrong, come and tell me about it. I'll accept and we will find the truth in discussion. I can't tell many things that I don't feel like i have enough expertise and knowledge but I can ask my readers about their opinion based on their expertise. - Alexey
Alexey, this means that you criticize the things which are safe to criticize :) - genereg
Deepak, assume that you are at a journal club in some friendly lab. Now, how many of the questions from there would you dare to ask at the comment section of the online journal? :) - genereg
How many journal club questions would I "dare" ask in a journal comments section? All of them. genereg, are you familiar with - Mr. Gunn
All of them?! good! If this is the case we will soon get the system working :) I did not get your point about - genereg
genereg, all of them. If there is something to say, it will be said, regardless of forum. The language might change, but the questions and comments won't - Deepak Singh
good. unfortunately other people do not behave like this. we have seen it in the example with Biophotonics paper. Many people wanted to say that it is wrong, but none said this at the journal web site.. - genereg
Let me ask this question. If this was presented at a conference, do you think people in the audience would be quiet? - Deepak Singh
not, sure. the question still, is why they don't comment. - genereg
Could it be as simple as they are not that comfortable on the web? They don't comment on Friendfeed either (the ones who do are active everywhere). - Deepak Singh
nope, i discussed this with a couple of active bloggers. they are not at FF, they are active bloggers, and they have seen the article at the journal we site. we discussed it online, that's it - genereg
Do they blog anonymously? and if not, would they blog about this? Sorry if that's been discussed before - Deepak Singh
nope. what's the reason to blog anonymously. it was discussed before. blog is to express and advertise yourself, peer-review is something absolutely different - genereg
I just don't get it. An opinion is an opinion, regardless of medium. To think that the medium somehow makes that opinion different and you are not willing to stand behind your opinion just does not compute in my head, but that's me - Deepak Singh
Just try to think why the anonymous peer-review was invented. - genereg
The primary reason for anonymous peer-review is the elimination of bias. If the reason for anonymous peer-review was to be able to criticize anonymously, then the system would be even more flawed than it is today (and it is flawed). - Deepak Singh
"Several of the other journals published by the BMJ group[10] allow optional open peer review,[11][12][13] as do PLoS Medicine, published by the Public Library of Science[14][15]. The BMJ's Rapid Responses[16] allow ongoing debate and criticism following publication.[17" - genereg
These journal comments that we discuss should have been that "open peer-review" - genereg
Open = No anonymity, otherwise it's not open, and like Neil said, comments and an "open peer review" process are different beasts - Deepak Singh
right. but if it does not work this way, we can try to figure out another way - genereg
That I won't disagree with, but anonymous commenting is not the right way - Deepak Singh
it depends, what is more important for you, the ideas or the people who say them. for me, the ideas - genereg
Both, anonymity, IMO is ripe for abuse. - Deepak Singh
well, as I said, just removing the mandatory registration does not mean a complete anonymity. plus the moderation.... - genereg
Agree that scientific identity is an area with a lot of potential for innovation. The way I see it, we aren't that far apart in intent. - Deepak Singh
Haha, this is what I get for waiting a day to come back to the feed!! @Mr.Gunn for sure moderation is a time consuming job, although I think that aside from blocking spam (and this is relatively easy) that the vast majority of posts will be on topic. Things might get ugly, but implementing a community self moderation system usually works really well ex: add a "Flag this comment" button,... more... - Brian Krueger - LabSpaces
Here is what I think. Never underestimate the number of possible compliance regulations people can violate. There are many of them, and the number is just growing. - - joergkurtwegner
Interesting how the discussion around the original article quickly drifted away from the scientific content and toward a meta-discussion, which was continued here. Could there be something more fundamental at work here? Also, anyone got any hard data on just how unused the PLoS commenting system is? For example, "the average number of comments on a PLoS article is 0.55 - here's how we calculated it." An analysis of that sort could offer new insights. - Rich Apodaca
Rich - There are plenty of examples of deep online discussion of scientific papers that stays on-topic, and doesn't drift off-topic. But so far as I can see, it's mostly happening on blogs. See, e.g., the n-category cafe ( ). - Michael Nielsen
Rich: there's this ( and a couple other workups of the same data. - Bill Hooker
wow, direct critique only 7%. Again as with BMC there is a shift towards positive and neutral comments, probably due to non-anonymity, as opposed to the typical comments obtained during anonymous peer review - genereg
I would be curious to see the age groups for any comment percentage numbers - joergkurtwegner
Another reason may simply be technical: PLoS ONE uses a kind of pop-up window (duuno the tech term for these) that blocks the whole browser. If I am to write thoughtful comments, I usually check some sources relevant to the statements I make, so I do not find this implementation particularly user-friendly. Just now, my browser (Firefox 3) froze after I had pressed "submit" in this window, and I had to redo the rating (fortunately, I had drafted the text in a separate text editor). - Daniel Mietchen
I think there should be a shift towards neutral and positive comment between the peer review process and after a paper has been accepted. If there's no shift, the peer review process isn't doing its job. - Scott Joseph Kennedy
That is true. But in general it seems that in Internet most serious comments to serious articles tend to be critical, because neutral comments do not add anything (so they are close to spam unless they provide some additional usefull information), and writing positive comments is not self-motivating (you spend your valuable time just to say that you agree with something). - genereg
I'm thinking Jorge Cham from PhD comics must have seen this thread. - Mr. Gunn
LOL, that's exactly what the "neutral" comments are. This spam can only happen in the absence of moderation. - genereg
Related thread at StackOverFlow: Why aren’t people rating questions? - Daniel Mietchen
January 11, 2013. Today I have read with great interest a recent article in the Guardian, which also proposed anonymous post-publication peer-review (, and have one essential comment to it. The idea of the anonymous post-publication peer-review was firstly introduced here, at FriendFeed in 2009 (see the... more... - genereg
January 26, 2013. Today I noticed a great new web site which has implemented the ideas that I have proposed above. Ok, three years later it is still not too late :) It would be nice if the authors contact me, because their web site still lacks a couple of essential components that would be needed - genereg
Daniel Mietchen
University of New Mexico just missed an opportunity to be ahead of the curve -
Steve Koch, one of the most active practitioners of open science, announced today that he has not been awarded tenure, despite the considerable support he had received from the global open science community. He accompanied his announcement with an open … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
So true! - Björn Brembs
Daniel, do these science3point0 posts still exist anywhere? Google is not finding this one. - Chris M
Daniel Mietchen
Goodbye Aaron Swartz – and Long Live Your Legacy -
The following entry is reposted from the OKFN’s main blog. It was written by Jonathan Gray and is licensed CC BY 3.0. The photo is by Daniel J. Sieradski (on Flickr), licensed CC BY-SA 2.0. January 14, 2013 in Access to Information, Bibliographic, Campaigning, Featured, News, Open Access, Open Data, Open … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Open Access Report December 2012 -
Since January 2012, I have been posting a monthly summary of Open-Access-related activities pertaining to Wikimedia projects as part of the GLAM Newsletter on the Wikimedia Outreach wiki. I have also occasionally contributed Tool Testing reports to the same GLAM newsletter, … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Open Access Report November 2012 -
Since January, I have been posting a monthly summary of Open-Access-related activities pertaining to Wikimedia projects as part of the GLAM Newsletter on the Wikimedia Outreach wiki. I am posting these reports also here on the blog in order to reach out … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Open Access Media Importer progress report: October & November -
The OAMI development process was streamlined to better incorporate feedback: We now use GitHub issues. Tickets are prioritized according to tags similar to a scheme used by Kathrin Passig in 2010: The plot helper script now can sort data by … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Open Access Report October 2012 -
Since January, I have been posting a monthly summary of Open-Access-related activities pertaining to Wikimedia projects as part of the GLAM Newsletter on the Wikimedia Outreach wiki. I am posting these reports also here on the blog in order to reach … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Reusing, revising, remixing and redistributing research -
A contribution to the PLOS blog on the occasion of Open Access Week. Introduction The initial purpose of Open Access is to enable researchers to make use of information already known to science as part of the published literature. One … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
User: Optics Nerd on Wikipedia -
User: Optics Nerd on Wikipedia
Peer to Peer University posted a photo: - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Open Access Report September 2012 -
Since January, I have been posting a monthly summary of Open-Access-related activities pertaining to Wikimedia projects as part of the GLAM Newsletter on the Wikimedia Outreach wiki. From now on, I will post these reports also here on the blog … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Creative Commons NC and ND licenses are not open -
Creative Commons NC and ND licenses are not open
okfn posted a photo: - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Open Access Media Importer: Presentation at WMDE, Collaborative Coding -
Last Friday, I visited Wikimedia Deutschland to conduct a presentation on the current state of the Open Access Media Importer (slides), which is funded by WMDE. Attending were project manager Nicole Ebber and senior software developer Daniel Kinzler; Daniel Mietchen … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
This #OpenScience event will be one for the ages: Oct 4 with @eperlste @badomens et al. paging #SONYC #scio13 #scifund -
@eperlste @badomens any provisions for joining in from afar? - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Budapest Open Access Initiative – looking ten years into both past and future -
A good ten years since the Budapest Open Access Initiative went public, the participants of the 10th anniversary meeting in February have released a set of recommendations concerning the next ten years of Open Access. Jonathan Gray over on the … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Open Access Media Importer: Page Templates, Automatic Import -
Since the last post, most work was done on page templates for uploaded media files. Page names are now based on article titles and both the database and pages created by the Open Access Media Importer now contain articles’ DOIs. … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Anton Zuiker
So, we're re-imagining publishing in an attempt to make an evolutionary leap...
@medium your terms of use, while more entertaining than others', will keep me out for some time. - Daniel Mietchen
Cameron Neylon
RT @CopyrightLibn: Are there any up-to-date timelines of Open Access events? And/or any "big picture" timelines that non-fanatics would be interested in?
@CopyrightLibn have you seen ? More on the other end of the interest scale, though. - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Fee waivers for the Wikipedia tutorial at ECCB 2012 – apply now! -
Were you planning to attend the European Conference on Computational Biology this year? It will take place in Basel, Switzerland from September 9-12 and features a rich program, including a tutorial about editing Wikipedia, for which fee waivers are available. Apply now … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Planning a mini contest for fee waivers at conference workshop. Suggestions/ participation welcome. -
Anyone know of examples to build upon? - Daniel Mietchen from Bookmarklet
Andrew Su
not bad indeed "@phylogenomics: Wow - Google Scholar "Updates" a big step forward in sifting through the literature"
First two suggestions for me were Three Steps to Heaven: Semantic Publishing in a Real World Workflow P Lord, S Cockell… - Arxiv preprint arXiv:1206.5135, 2012 and Linking research data with scholarly publications TK Attwood, P McDermott, J Marsh, SR Pettifer… - EMBnet. journal, 2012 .... more... - Daniel Mietchen
+1 on the feed - Andrew Su
Twitter Times EvoMRI
Open thread: Amazon forces to Suspend Crowdfunding for Creative Commons eBooks « - - unglueit Amazon Payments has informed us that they will no longer process pledge payments for, forcing us to suspend all active ungluing campaigns. According to a Senior Account Manager at Amazon, Amazon has decided against “boarding fresh crowdfunding accounts at this time”. Amazon has been providing payment services for, as it does for the popular crowdfunding site Kickstarter. offers a win-win solution to readers, who want to read and share their favorite books convenien... show all text posted by friends: (5) @tvol: :( Amazon forces to Suspend Crowdfunding for Creative Commons eBooks #ungluit 09.08.2012 19.03.43 @AubreyMcFato: Open thread: #Amazon forces to Suspend Crowdfunding for Creative Commons eBooks #CC 09.08.2012 18.24.00 @timoreilly: Amazon forces to Suspend Crowdfunding for Creative Commons eBooks 09.08.2012 17.35.17 @Calimaq: Lâche...
Any list of socially (and environmentally) responsible banks or payment services out there? In Germany and Austria, there is EthikBank ( ), where the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany has its account. I am not aware of any similar entity that would provide payment services internationally. - Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
RT @mattwaldron: Germany puts their laws up on GitHub. And yes you can submit pull requests!
Public version history is key: "Integrating the whole history of German law changes in Git is the ambitious goal." - Daniel Mietchen
Для этой страницы история изменений отсутствует. -
Запрашиваемой страницы не существует. Она могла быть удалена или переименована. Попробуйте найти в вики похожие страницы.
Interesting read, with a *beautiful* photo: #Loboscelidiinae #ftw -
Found second home at . Also in fr and es. - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Open Access Media Importer: Database, Upload Testing -
Since the last post, I rewrote the Open Access Media Importer to use a proper database – SQLite – instead of CSV text files. This step should aid both maintainability and performance; while generating the database using oa-cache find-media now … Continue reading → - Daniel Mietchen
Daniel Mietchen
Just having a look at Ulrich's Periodicals Directory for the first time. Seems to be in dare need of some proofreading.
Picture 239.png
For instance, only one @PLoS journal is listed as active - fittingly, that's @PLoSONE. - Daniel Mietchen
Eh. True that. Don't know how to fix it. - Aubrey McFato
How often do graduate students use Twitter? via @figshare #altmetrics -
Could be of interest to #scico12 people - grad student use of Twitter - Daniel Mietchen
Other ways to read this feed:Feed readerFacebook