I partially agree. I think our experiments are much more clearly defined with definite end points. We don't generally track the process of a reaction for instance. Another difference is that when we do do a time course or something similar it is rarely a case of looking at that sample - we would almost always take a sample (product) and then do something to it (new procedure). Where you do just follow a reaction, or where the plan changes midstream, we do one of two things. One is to add a comment and the other is to change the post.

Our system does have a mechanism for making changes and the changes are all tracked. Additionally a reason for the modification is required before it can be committed. I should say it isn't a standard blog engine - I hope to get more details up on that sometime soon but I would rather leave that to Andrew to put in his words.

Equally I think you could implement the outlines of our system in a Wiki framework but then you lose the 'journal like' nature of the blog which to me is more like a lab notebook. At core what we are talking about is a way of organising 'posts'. Whether the posts are in a wiki or a blog is fairly immaterial.

Do you think a robust and transparent change tracking system answers your criticism or is there more to it than that?

I can see our system doesn't naturally handle things like your Exp098 but I think a lot of this could be handled either as additions to the post, as separate posts, or as comments. Maybe we should try to do one of your reactions and see how we get on and what the results look like?