191–200 of 341 posts
Yeah I'm gonna go subscribe to the journal for €100 a year before I comment... Right.
Ironically, you obviously didn't read the OP, as it clearly mentions people could at least bother to read the, free, abstract.
I don't see the title being "Read the abstract before you comment."
edit: Didn't see the Scihub link admittedly, but come on. "Yeah just do the illegal thing."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the average joe won't know how to set up a private personal website / blog & many of us have friends outside to tech.
If only you had read the sibling comment and my answer there...
Indieweb is a good idea but again, difficult set up for the average person.
Asking people to invest their time to actually read extensive information about what your try to say, with no perceived additional benefits to them is just hubris.
Pick your audience or tailor your message to your audience. Don't blame the receiver.
Some years ago, Ars Technica ran a story on guns. https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lot... About halfway through a one-page article was this quote. "If you have read this far, please mention Bananas in your comment below. We're pretty sure 90% of the respondants to this story won't even read it first." Sure enough, there were about 3 pages of comments before someone mentioned bananas. Read the…
I WANT to read the paper. Most of the time the article gives no link to it though.
Recently there was a brouhaha on the Twitters about 2+2=5 that went viral and, unfortunately, political. The argument is that post-modernists are trying to tear down mathematics as a "white supremacist social construct" and trying to say that "2+2=5" is as valid an answer as "2+2=4". Which sounds pretty bad, so I looked into it. The original Tweet thread was a math nerd who jokingly, and not incorrectly, illustrated…
Twitter is poison. It amplifies meaningless shit into the stratosphere with its trending algorithms, aided by the fact that the largest userbase on twitter seems to be political extremists of both left & right. It's created an environment where making a comment like "mathematics is merely a white supremacist social construct" is now somehow acceptable to the left. The platform literally exists to make things look lik…
It is like unleashing a neural net that amplifies whatever it sees in a image but fed with white noise IMO. And then it just keeps on spiraling in on itself.
Some years ago, Ars Technica ran a story on guns. https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lot... About halfway through a one-page article was this quote. "If you have read this far, please mention Bananas in your comment below. We're pretty sure 90% of the respondants to this story won't even read it first." Sure enough, there were about 3 pages of comments before someone mentioned bananas. Read the…
Good times when I got 'bananas' in my mailbox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't that like 'forcing' the readers to the full length of the article? It's fine if the content is very compelling. I think it has to have something to do with reading online. It's really challenging to get readers glued to the page while traditionally physical books and magz have an easier environment (less distractions).
If you don’t have the patience to digest the article, what give you the authority to write on the topic?
... your common sense, your sense of logic, your spidey sense to detect BS trained since long time ago, your previous experience, or the fact that you are yet a expert in the topic.
Or just your curiosity and desire to participate in the conversation, that is the correct motivation. To take a chance to improve your knowledge about a topic shouldn't be regulated by a pass.
Everybody wants their paper turning into a breaking new / symbol of authority or just cheat in the citations game, but this is not how it happens most of the time. Most of the time it is just published and nothing happens. Nobody will rush to read your hard work. Is just how it is
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, this time you haven’t read far enough! The author, on page four of the comments: https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lot... > yak8998 wrote: >> Haha, bravo Mr. Timmer. If IE search is working right, then apparently I am the first. I think its well over 90%... >> "bananas" > That was added after publication, so the first few dozen commenters wouldn't have seen it. Idea credit goes to our edi…
That's one awesome PR-trick! From my own experience: when I comment on something that I haven't read it's usually because I'm more interested in the conversation around the subject than the subject itself. So, in that case, I have usually read the comments, and if half of them just randomly included the word "bananas" in them, I'm pretty sure that the convesation whould change to be: "wtf are ppl saying bananas all t…