When I first started thinking about Science for Life.365, I wanted it to be something easy to find and easy to read. Something scientists and non-scientists alike could enjoy.
“people love science, and people love Facebook”.
While that may well be true, luckily Kristin Alford and James Hutson convinced me to post it elsewhere as well. With constantly changing goal posts in Facebook, for example reductions in control members have over who sees our posts, and the issue of ownership (once I post to Facebook, technically they ‘own’ the content), I’m mightily glad I made this a double header – a wordpress site + Facebook community.
Discussions held at the sciencerewired conference this week confirmed this was a good idea. Matt Levinson for one commented on how he’s noticed a slight shift away from Facebook in recent months, as writers and others feel the need to create their own space again. It’s about control, and it’s about quality. It’s about trust. I along with many others sense there is increasing momentum away from these aspects of communication with Facebook.
Will it really help my science writing – and indeed my reputation – in the long term to create a relatively short post every day? Or would my hours be better spent posting less frequently, rather focussing my efforts on better planned and researched articles? Would anyone actually read longer articles if they didn’t fit in the Facebook framework?
Only time will tell. For the meantime, I’ll stick with the experiment.
[photo thanks to Alaskan Dude on flickr]