man i came back after 2 days just to comment on this: you're high. the article is crystal clear and intuitive. he covers each layer's design, purpose, and effect in intuitive terms.
you on the other hand haven't said literally anything except vaguely criticized. look i'll show you how it's done:
>The explanation is also very long and rambling. While I understand the author has made an effort, I don't think the article really presents the subject matter in a new way: I can learn all of this elsewhere. This is a common problem when people write about complex subject matter without fully understanding the knowledge gap between teacher and audience.
these two sentences have nothing to do with each other: that the explanation isn't novel has nothing to do with elided gaps between expositors and readers (wherein usually the exposition is too complex, not too simple as you've confused it).
>If I were the author, I might try to read up on technical communication and spend some time figuring out how to correctly simply something.
vague. read from where? which chapters? simplify which parts?
>I do like the animation, but again, it only serves to show how image convolution works, and doesn't actually teach us anything about a CNN.
it's like you think that one animation should explain the entire CNN. did you actually read the post? that image explain convolutions and is the absolute standard explanation for convolving with a filter/kernel.
>I would suggest the author break the document into three separate sections
better in that at least it's concrete advice. i suggest you include more points like this.
>images are just matrices
are you suggesting the author goes into CCDs? ADCs? now that would be a rambling post.
>That way you counteract the information blindness that occurs from simplification by providing the information later.
that's terrible advice. detail should be evenly distributed through the article. look at any journal article: except for the appendices all of the meat is in the body not in the conclusion.
>Otherwise, this article is really more of a data dump than an intuitive explanation,
a data dump would be just code. this is in fact an intuitive explanation that uses the classification of dogs/cats/boats/bird as the framework, so there's a structure, terms are defined, there's context (lenet etc.), and there are references.
>and since it doesn't really teach us anything we can't learn elsewhere, I don't see what it contributes.
blog articles don't need to be novel.