> The reasons most commonly given for not publishing were that investigators thought their findings were not interesting enough or did not have time.

not publishing to a blog is the same as not publishing elsewhere. It's not the medium that's the problem.

Blogs build reputation by good work. Lowering the threshold to publishing will make people more likely to publish.

It's a lot of work to publish, and publications won't accept negative results as interesting.

By self publishing on an accessible medium, negative results are more likely to be shown. Not every blog post would even be about results, but about the process.

I readily await the fate of a scientist who's google search results only turn up an entire blog of failed results...

Hmm and maybe have a "peer reviewed" planet?