3 Quarks Daily Science Blogging Prize

Each year, 3 Quarks Daily sponsors prizes for blogging in different areas: science, arts & literature, politics and social science, and philosophy. This year, the excitement surrounding the science prize will be even greater than usual, since it will be judged by me! Previous judges include Stephen Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and Lisa Randall. Not sure what their qualifications were, I don’t think any of them have a blog. (Well, Lisa did guest-blog for us.) Maybe they have had productive careers as scientists or something.

I will do my best to live up to the lofty standards of the previous judges. Please help the contest along by spreading the word, and submitting your favorite posts. And yes — you’re perfectly welcome to submit things you’ve written yourself.

Entries close June 9, so don’t delay!

This entry was posted in Internet. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to 3 Quarks Daily Science Blogging Prize

  1. Chris says:

    So can your blog win or are you out the running?

  2. Sean Carroll says:

    I will be perfectly objective!

    (But no, blog posts by me, my co-bloggers, or people I am married to are unlikely to win this year.)

  3. Pingback: 3QD Sci-Prize… « The Sky's the Limit

  4. Shecky R says:

    Why not just award it to Carl Zimmer every year, but let the official judge pick the runner-up… ;-)

  5. Gizelle Janine says:

    Go, Sean. Show ‘em what blogging’s all about… :D

  6. Cormac says:

    Is there a panel or is are you the only judge? In a few instances where I was asked to judge blogging with colleagues, I was surprised by how diverse our views were, it seems to be a rather more subjective business than judging papers/proposals…

  7. Sean Carroll says:

    The power is entirely mine.

  8. Cormac says:

    I’ll spread the word over here in Ireland, but I think proposing one post is a bit misleading – I enjoy CV because of the rich variety of posts. I guess it’s really a post award rather than a blog award.

  9. jrad says:

    I’ve heard nothing but good things about 3QD, and you make the perfect judge! I’ve shamelessly thrown a recent blog post in the ring, but I’m more interested in seeing the winners. Looking through the previous years’ finalists, I can see I need to raise my blog game a few notches!

  10. So far I’ve voted every year, and have nominated something every year since 2010. This year I’ve nominated something but will not be voting. It takes a lot of investment to read all of the nominations before the voting deadline, and I’ve decided not to put myself through that again.

    No entry that I’ve voted for has ever reached the semifinalists, but in the alphabetical list of nominations my vote went to #103 in 2009 (would not be eligible nowadays), #70 in 2010, and #84 in 2011. As for articles I’ve nominated, they have fared better, making it to #13 in the list of semifinalists in both 2010 and 2011. In 2010 my nomination made the finalists as well.

    As a finale to the 3QD Prize, I’ve always enjoyed the rationale that the judge traditionally writes explaining what they liked about each of the winners. It was a real anti-climax the year that Richard Dawkins simply named the winners with no commentary (and they were all biologically-themed, too). Sean, of course, will do better.

  11. Pingback: Links for early June 2012 « The Outer Hoard