Editing my doctoral thesis on stem cells in a blog: Why not?

OK folks, after reading the official rules about how to get and manage a doctoral thesis, and after speaking with my supervisor asking for his permission, I’ve decided to edit my ongoing doctoral thesis in Pimm. Or at least the introduction of it, which is intended to be no other than a review-like summary of some current results in the stem cell biology of different tissues, organs. What will remain hidden in the first round (but can follow later): the data-heavy yet unpublished results and the discussion, conclusion session. Objectives, Materials & Methods: we shall see it. Sounds like there are complete parts of the thesis, but that’s dead wrong, at this time my doctoral thesis is in an embryonic form. Also no idea on how challenging, meaningful this project, a sub-series in Pimm, will be. What I know is that continuous experimentation with genres and frames is the essence of free blogging!
After all, what do I risk here? If someday I’d like to write a review out of the published introduction, can this cause a publishing problem? According to Maxine Clarke, Publishing Executive Editor of Nature (i.e. peer review and publishing policy expert) the status of a thesis is: “No, a doctoral thesis does not count as “previously published” and yes, you can submit work that was part of your thesis, with an appropriate citation.”

I also asked Maxine by mail and she was kind enough to enlighten me: There is no problem with you publishing your thesis in this way, so far as consideration for publication of any part of it for a Nature journal is concerned (or any NPG journal). We encourage communication between scientists via discussion of work and unpublished drafts in the form of theses, meetings, preprint servers, online scientific forums (between scientists) etc.

Google searches: first 3 results or first 30 results?

In What Google Universal Search’s first 30 results know about “biotech blog” I wrote: “Everyday web users are strongly adapted to a situation in which 99% of their information comes from the first 30 results of a Google Search (the first 3 pages with divine power, if the setting is 10 results/page)”

But I was ignorant about (I am truly not a SEO expert) that in many cases, users’ tolerance is restricted to the first 3 results only, says Udi Manber, who oversees Google’s entire search-quality group in a recent New York Times article on Google Keeps Tweaking Its Search Engine: “Expectations are higher now, when search first started, if you searched for something and you found it, it was a miracle. Now, if you don’t get exactly what you want in the first three results, something is wrong.”

I guess that this search tolerance limit strongly depends on the search subject: the “first 3 results” expectation is valid in case of everyday commercial, superficial and basic data searches (who is Malcolm Gladwell?) while the first 30 results rules when the search is about something more context-dependent (why Malcolm Gladwell is an influential guy?) so the search engine faces “higher” user expectations.

(Maybe this first 3 or 30 results opposition is simply not a fruitful one as people are using special search engines, Google services concerning special topics, like scholarly literature, or blog posts. But the intention behind Google Universal Search is to handle all conceivable searches in one unified searching surface. I think it’s time to ask a search expert or consult with my wife as this question is not one that could be managed with 1 search and the first 30 results.)

Update: Anna says: instead of superficial vs. context-dependent, what I am really thinking about here is data vs. argumentation focused search.