It's good to blog

Or so say the editors of Nature. They write:

More researchers should engage with the blogosphere, including authors of papers in press.

Well, if you're reading this you know they were preaching to one of the choir when I read it. But in their penultimate sentence they also explain why this is at best a mediocre web site.

A good blogging website consumes much of the spare time of the one or several fully committed scientists that write and moderate it.

It's obvious from the small number of posts I make that this blog doesn't take that much of my time. It also explains why my Technorati rank is only 6, and I'm barely at 180 in the Nature Blog Network. Still, I hope that I'm "mak[ing] a difference to the quality and integrity of public discussion."