Obviously we are a science network but we are not the only model - however, we are very much Science 2.0 whereas Scienceblogs was Blogging 1.0 (and yet I would regard Adam Bly as a Science 2.0 pioneer, even though Scienceblogs is not a Science 2.0 site - makes no sense? You'll have to buy the book) and there are tangential ways to go as well, something a quantum physicist would surely understand, living in a world of complex adaptive systems.
He points out what many members here already know but new readers may not: A structure allows for good content to get more visibility. Our featured section is populated by featured columnists who have earned their way there, but also by promotion from moderators. So if someone is a brand new blogger, they don't have to disappear quickly, a moderator can promote it from blog to article in our worldwide feed, to featured article. Good stuff rises but something that is just a link and discussion (like this blog post) won't clog up the front page for a week.
He then goes on to discuss other things but I won't rehash them here (go read his article and come back, I'll wait) and instead agree that being in a network allows for an assumption for a certain amount of quality and it opens up a much larger audience for everyone through the miracle of compounding.
He says Scienceblogs, should it rise from the ashes, get a stronger technical base - a dedicated programmer (like the guy we have here) along with an active participant behind it all (ahem - me) ... basically, he says Scienceblogs should become Science 2.0.
I wouldn't go that far but I do agree that taking the minutiae out of the hands of scientists and science book authors and adding in a lot of cool community features would be a step toward reinvigorating that brand.