Design a site like this with
Get started

Join the Conversation


  1. John DeLaughter , I noticed you just posted on mitten crabs to the community. Unfortunately, only two plusses (one was mine), although it was both interesting and informative. Next time, upload the photo (e.g., of a mitten crab) directly to your post instead of linking to your blog. Add the link to your blog at the bottom of your post, after you’ve uploaded your image. You’ll get more “eye balls” on your post that way. 

    Getting more engagement on G+ also requires that you engage actively yourself by interacting with other posts. This is a social network, after all. 


  2. Let me clarify: it’s fine to link to your blog, just don’t do a link with little or no text. In any case, because of the way Google displays links, with a small pix, such posts don’t get much engagement. Take a look at posts that get a lot of plusses/comment and you’ll see what I mean. 

    I don’t have a science blog so I can’t give you an example. I do have a foodie blog, so you can see how I posted a part of my blog on G+ and still linked to my blog site:


  3. I think that you need to consider the recent Science engagers circle.  I stayed on the sidelines of this in the “maybe” category to see what happened.  I believe that you have at least two separate circles here.  At one end are regular and extensive posters on Science on Google +, many of them recognized research scientists.   At the other are people who are new to Google + and deserve mentoring and opportunity for engagement.  If you look at the comments above on about March 27, 2012, Chris Robinson and others are noting the problems that many of us are having with adding new people, as we are already at the 5K limit.

    So one part of this circle is aimed at new people who are looking for a circle of scientists trusted by other scientists.  The other is a circle that ought to motivate those of us who have been here a while to clear out some dead wood and let aspiring newcomers in.

    I also think that there is a problem in how this circle is perceived by others.  For example, I saw one share in which it was stated:

    “Here’s a combination that you may not have seen before.  A set of people certified by +Chris Robinson who not only post regularly on Science and Maths, have backgrounds or current careers in Science and Maths, but who are also prepared to interact or engage with you and each other.”

    I believe that this post by chemist and associate professor of philosophy at San José State University, Janet D. Stemwedel is worth a read:   How we present ourselves to others is an important issue of integrity.

    So my problem with this circle is that I am not an expert research scientist, nor did I just pop out of the turnip patch yesterday.  Inclusion here made me feel uncomfortable.   I hate to be critical because I do have some concept of the hard work that goes into curation.  And it would be next to impossible to draw a line that defined “expert”. 

    So maybe it would be better to promote posts.  Some from newcomers, others from regulars.  All read by scientists in related fields and deemed worthy of note.


  4. Apologize for the slow response. 

    Shephine Shaji – You were added to the database a month or two ago. See row 1130 in this database


    Gaythia Weis – Thanks for your feedback. We do promote posts. Some of the posts we reshare to the Curator’s Choice category in the community and some we reshare to the Science on Google+ page. In regards to the shared circle, we sent out invites to people already in the database and asked them to introduce themselves and to tell us about their research. Those individuals who commented (novices and experts) were included in the shared circle. I apologize for making you feel uncomfortable. 


  5. Chris Robinson in the past couple months, I was banned because I expressed an unpopular opinion about dark matter. At least one moderator said at least three false things about me in support of the ban. What happened to that moderator?


  6. Chris Robinson I briefly was, and while I appreciate the correction, the fact that libel was brushed under the rug has made me feel very uncomfortable. How would you feel if it had happened to you and you had no opportunity to know the identity of the one who had libeled you?


  7. I’m in the same situation too James Salsman , in the other science on g+ community. Banned for asking which physics book is the best to study…I tried to contact the moderators, but no response. I really wish to be back there


  8. James Salsman – Here’s what I know about your situation. I have seen one or two of your posts where you were challenging everyone to a debate and betting on it. I believe this violates Google’s terms of service, so hopefully we deleted these posts. I have also seen one or two posts where you said that you were banned from the community, but from our perspective, you were still a member of the community. In regards to Science on Google+ curator(s) making false statements about you, this is news to me.


  9. Chris Robinson I was not challenging everyone to a debate, only those who think that WIMPs are more likely to be dark matter than intermediate mass black holes. I don’t want to make a big deal about it, but some days it just makes me feel terrible. I was told that a moderator said three false things about me. Thank you for your understanding. I consider it resolved.


  10. Ian James : the decision to remove and ban you from the community was voted and agreed to by our moderator community, and not a unilateral decision. The reason you were removed is that (1) you repeatedly accused the OP of being paid by animal testing industry, a claim that has no evidence and appears to be made up (2) you repeatedly stated that you do not care about community rules and that you would continue to ignore moderators (3) you were disruptive to the community and repeatedly hijacked posts made by the OP with the same comments. Also note, the reason you cannot see the moderator’s comments in this post ( is that you have been blocked by her; her comments are still there. The record of the thread has not been altered and your ad hominem attacks on her also remain there for the record. 



  11. Ian James As stated, all the moderators work as a team. Banning members is something we don’t take lightly and we discuss and agree on such decisions together. We have all read the thread. You’ll note all of the comments on that thread came from our page, reflecting our collective voice. On that thread, we warned you to stay on topic. You continued to push the same line, derailing a conversation about the development of a male contraceptive pill to push your personal agenda about animal testing. 

    When our moderation team stepped in to steer the comments back on topic, you wrote: “The mods as far as I’m concerned can do what the hell they like. I had a life before G+ and without Science on G+ , so hey.” 

    In your post here, you have now attacked the integrity of one of our moderators, who has a PhD, has published extensively in high calibre peer reviewed journals and is one of the most active scientists on Google+. Rajini Rao, is, on every level, more than qualified to be a moderator for this Community. Rajini undertakes moderation for our Community on a volunteer basis, on top of a demanding research and teaching position. We do not appreciate your attacks on Rajini’s professionalism.

    Our Community is not a place for you to harass other members or to drive your personal ideals. Posting to a ccommunity is not the same as posting to your personal thread. On your own stream, you are free to write and conduct yourself as you wish. In our Community, you must abide by the rules and listen to our moderators. We do not stand for abuse. Your claims about the OP and our moderator are completely out of line.

    You have made it clear that you do not respect our guidelines or our moderators whose work helps to ensure community discussions meet our Community aims. Your ban stands. We will not enter into a protracted discussion about this after this post.


  12. Hi Ian James. The moderators have been watching you hijack posts and attack members and moderators for several weeks now.  This is not an issue specific to a single moderator or community (e.g., see I especially like your comment on the previously mentioned post, “Moron, my dog is a carnivore, and he is feed a BARF diet, try not to show your ignorance in public again.  I eat meat, I wear leather.   When your time comes I hope is its bloody and painful and your aware right up until the end.” Your behaviors are not acceptable and will not be tolerated in any community. There is no interest in lifting the ban, and as far as we are concerned, this discussion is over.


  13. If we see an OP that’s interesting and want to thresh it out without disturbing the people in that forum, may we share that post to our own profile and do it there?

    I would like to comment on science posts without annoying those who posted the original in the first place.


  14. Chad Haney, well that isn’t always that isn’t always the case – especially when you don’t agree them. I’ve already tried. The authoritariansm is simply too strong in them.

    That environment is not acceptable for open and free examination of science.

    I would still like to document for myself and others who may be interested what I and a few of my followers think about what we find.

    I wish to do this without getting people who are not so open minded upset and angry.


  15. carey g. butler now I understand your comment about “annoy with comments”. You appear to be a climate change denier. In a community devoted to science and moderated by real scientists, you will feel like the community doesn’t suit you because the majority will not accept your opinions about climate change. I don’t see anyone getting upset or angry (yet). I and many of the scientists here get very frustrated dealing with trolls, i.e., people who only wish to disrupt a conversation in order to push their unsubstantiated opinions and conspiracy theories. I don’t deal with climate change. However, I do deal with many anti-science and anti-vaccine trolls. In my experience, troll is the correct word.


  16. Chad Haney Listen to yourself: “climate change denier…”, “real scientists”, …

    It sounds like we’re living in the 17th century again. What am I guilty of, neo-heresy against the ‘Church’?

    Listen, my question here was not to start another debate, which I also didn’t start where you are referring to, so I’ll just leave here as well and leave you be.

    I can get answers to my question elsewhere. Sorry to have bothered you.


  17. carey g. butler I appreciate your politeness and earnest attempt to find answers. However, I do not know what to call someone who denies the facts about climate change. Climate change unbeliever sounds like a cult. The reason that I said we are “real” scientist is because people forget that our day job and our passion is science. It’s what we do.


  18. Repected Moderator [Chris Robinson , Rajini Rao , Chad Haney , Science on Google+ ],

    I would like to inform you that I have been banned from posting onto your community for more than six months now. Since the last post, the quality of my posts has improved and I have ‘learnt my lesson’. I would really like to post to your community, and will be able to contribute greatly to it. I would like to request you, yet again, and with the same rigour, to please repeal the ban on the page.

    Thank You

    Yes! Knowledge Vishesh Kashyap 


  19. Science on Google+ 

    But could you at least explain what lacks in my posts so I may ratify my posting style over the next few weeks. Please tell me the kind of posts needed for you community and I will make that kind. Please understand that I really want to be part of your great community.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: