5 ms·

> add a bit of flourish to what might otherwise be a very short article Brevity would save time and be easier on everyone's scarce attention.

throwawaymath 8y ago
I agree, but that's not what everyone wants. I don't think they necessarily should want it, either. If writing in this style gets more people to read then so much the better - the complaints about it in this thread are, if we're going to be fully self-aware about it, a very tiny and unrepresentative microcosm compared to the total readership in play. We're not all running around as hyperrational machine gods :). What matters to some people doesn't matter to others, and it's probably very hard to optimize widely disseminated content for accessibility, enjoyability and depth of technical coverage. I might go so far as to say you need to pick two.
- Retric 8y ago
  The problem every news source uses this format. Remove the fluff and you might get a single page of 'major' science news per month. Sure it would be a little dry but it would also be something I would want to read.
isoprophlex 8y ago
Exactly, I find myself (unconsciously) skimming the first sentences of each paragraph of these long articles until the actual content starts. It feels like having to sit through the first 5 secs of a YT ad before you can skip it. All because the writers get paid by the word, i suppose?
- mikec3010 8y ago
  > All because the writers get paid by the word, i suppose I don't suppose that. I'd say it's because writing has more levels to it than a Wikipedia style information dump. Just like software has more elements than just spelling out the desired behavior.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    If we're going with software analogy, then articles like this one are journalistic equivalent of Java EE-style bloat, or Electron apps.
    - mikec3010 8y ago
      Well don't ever pick up an issue of the New Yorker. It'll put you in a coma.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
mikec3010 8y ago
Not everyone's attention is scarce. I think it's a symptom of the digital age. Too much consumption on computers with constant interruptions and instant gratification.

throwawaymath 8y ago

I agree, but that's not what everyone wants. I don't think they necessarily should want it, either. If writing in this style gets more people to read then so much the better - the complaints about it in this thread are, if we're going to be fully self-aware about it, a very tiny and unrepresentative microcosm compared to the total readership in play. We're not all running around as hyperrational machine gods :). What matters to some people doesn't matter to others, and it's probably very hard to optimize widely disseminated content for accessibility, enjoyability and depth of technical coverage. I might go so far as to say you need to pick two.

Retric 8y ago
The problem every news source uses this format. Remove the fluff and you might get a single page of 'major' science news per month. Sure it would be a little dry but it would also be something I would want to read.

isoprophlex 8y ago

Exactly, I find myself (unconsciously) skimming the first sentences of each paragraph of these long articles until the actual content starts. It feels like having to sit through the first 5 secs of a YT ad before you can skip it. All because the writers get paid by the word, i suppose?

mikec3010 8y ago
> All because the writers get paid by the word, i suppose I don't suppose that. I'd say it's because writing has more levels to it than a Wikipedia style information dump. Just like software has more elements than just spelling out the desired behavior.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  If we're going with software analogy, then articles like this one are journalistic equivalent of Java EE-style bloat, or Electron apps.
  - mikec3010 8y ago
    Well don't ever pick up an issue of the New Yorker. It'll put you in a coma.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

mikec3010 8y ago

Not everyone's attention is scarce. I think it's a symptom of the digital age. Too much consumption on computers with constant interruptions and instant gratification.