I was awfully pleased to learn, late last week, that Scientist Sees Squirrel has won the 2018 People’s Choice Award for Canada’s Favourite Science Blog*. What an honour! The award competition is run yearly by the blogging network ScienceBorealis in collaboration with the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada. There were 9 nominees this year, and readers were invited to vote for three favourites. If you voted for Scientist Sees Squirrel, thank you! And if you voted for three other blogs (as I did), thank you also, because the full slate of nominees is much more interesting than any single winner could have been. I’ll explain. Continue reading
Image: Squirrel (of course), Sorbyphoto CC0.
I’m happy to be able to tell you that Scientist Sees Squirrel is a 2018 nominee for “Canada’s Favourite Science Blog” – a People’s Choice Award. This is an annual award, jointly sponsored by the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada and the blogging network Science Borealis. It’s lovely to get this kind of recognition, along with some other excellent nominees.
If you’re a regular visitor here, and if you like what I have for you to read, then perhaps you’ll want to head over to the nominees’ page and vote for Scientist Sees Squirrel. (Voting will be open until September 29.) Or, even better, you could head over to that same page and check out some of the other nominees. You may find some new reading, and if you feel like voting for one of those other blogs, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. (After all, that’s what I plan to do just did.)
If you’re new to Scientist Sees Squirrel – perhaps you’re checking out all the nominees – then, welcome! Have a look around. You’ll find all sorts of things here; in fact, Scientist Sees Squirrel is named in celebration of – or, equally, as an admission of – my wandering attention span. A lot of it reflects my interests as a university academic, in the fields of ecology and evolution, but that ends up spinning out in a lot of ways. You can go to the home page and scroll down to see my most recent posts, or you can dig into the archives. You might find, for example:
- Posts about plants, and gardens, and nature
- Posts about the ways we think about nature, or about science
- Posts about the intersection of science and literature – including connections between science and poetry, novels, and childrens’ books
- Posts about scientific writing (there are lots of these), including posts about when it sparkles, and about why it mostly doesn’t
- Posts about – stick with me – the fascinating stories behind the Latin (or “scientific”) names we give to the species that share our planet. Such names can be fun to say; they can capture the imagination and amazement of the scientist who confers a name; or they can tell us stories about amazing figures in the history of science
- Posts that defy easy categorization. This post is one of my favourites; but I’m not sure I can tell you what it’s about.
There’s a lot more here, of course, so explore a bit. If you like what you find, you can be alerted to future posts by following the blog (link at upper right), or by following me on Twitter or Facebook (a friend request will automatically make you a follower). And when you’re done with Scientist Sees Squirrel, please head to the voting page, from where you’ll be able to visit the other nominees too. Thanks for dropping by!
© Stephen Heard September 16, 2018
Image: Mexican red-bellied squirrel, Sciurus aureogaster: Dick Culbert CC BY 2.0 via wikimedia.org
Inspired by similar exercises from Small Pond Science and The Lab and Field, I present once more a few of the more interesting search terms by which Scientist Sees Squirrel has been found. These are all real, I swear – and they’re only the tip of the iceberg. About 95% of searches are encrypted, so I don’t see them. Imagine what gems are buried in the encrypted searches!
do wizards need to know calculus Continue reading
Image: Rage, Deiby Chico via flickr.com CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
I’ve been posting here at Scientist Sees Squirrel for three years and change, and in that time I’ve learned a few things. I’ve learned that some posts are wildly popular, while others sink like very quiet stones. I’ve learned that writing a post is a good way to find out what I think about something, and that leaving the comments open is a great way to find out what I’m missing in my thinking. And I’ve learned that some topics make people very, very angry. Continue reading
Like a lot of scientists, I’ve got a little bit of imposter syndrome. I’m secretly* afraid that my colleagues will discover that I’m not actually very good at what I do and that I don’t belong in science. (To be clear: strictly intellectually, I understand that I’m not really an imposter; but that has almost nothing to do with how I feel.) I have this worry about my research, about my writing book, and even about my blogging. At some point in the writing of nearly every new post, I find myself thinking “I’ll be embarrassed if people read this”. (A while ago, I connected this to introversion, but I don’t think it’s just that.)
There seem to be two really useful ways to deal with imposter syndrome. One is to admit that you feel it, and I’ve just done that. The other is to recognize good work that you’ve done. Continue reading
Image: SPAM-flavoured macadamia nuts (own work; CC BY 4.0). Look, these nuts horrified me as much as they horrify you – but I have to admit, they were pretty good.
We’re all accustomed to fake-journal spam and fake-conference spam by now. But I’ve started to get a new flavour of spam in my inbox: guest-post spam.
Here’s the thing: I’ve had some really nice guest posts on Scientist Sees Squirrel*, and I’d be happy to have some more. Guest posts offer some different perspective, and the world certainly needs more than just mine. But here’s the latest guest-post spam to come my way: Continue reading
Photo: Eurasian red squirrel © Peter Trimming CC BY-SA 2.0
Today, Scientist Sees Squirrel is three years old. This is somewhat startling to me, as is the fact that I’ve written about 240 posts on the blog. In honour of this blogoversary, I went back and re-read my very first post: Does an academic need an attention span? I was relieved to discover that, while it’s a little clunky, it doesn’t hold up too badly. Continue reading