8 ms·
> 2. I see click-bait titles like "The top 19 nutrition myths of 2019". It's 2019. EVERYONE does this to get attention from people. > 3. Reviews by "professio
by sachdevap 7y ago
> 2. I see click-bait titles like "The top 19 nutrition myths of 2019".
It's 2019. EVERYONE does this to get attention from people.
> 3. Reviews by "professionals" that I can't easily verify. "Mike Hart, MD" is an example. Who is he? How do I know he's a real person? If he is a real person and a real doctor, how do I know he actually recommended this site?
They actually cite sources. You really need to look at particular topics on the website.
> 4. The attempts to get me to spend money feels slimy. --This is pretty subjective, I know, but that's how it comes off to me.
As you point out, this is really subjective. And I don't spend money on the website.
You are basically saying that they don't do SEO well, not actually critiquing their work. You would not need a lot of research to decide if their page on any supplement, e.g. [0], is reputable, cause they cite sources.
[0] https://examine.com/supplements/ashwagandha/ https://examine.com/supplements/ashwagandha/
- OJFord 7y ago> > 2. I see click-bait titles like "The top 19 nutrition myths of 2019". > It's 2019. EVERYONE does this to get attention from people. Nobody that successfully gets my attention does that.
- enlyth 7y agoThe front page of BBC is filled with clickbait headlines every day
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoFor shame, they've really jumped head long in to being more 'tabloid' and less of a serious news source.
- dredmorbius 7y agoOddly enough, I rarely visit BBC's homepage, or listen. to their braodcasts any more, for very much this reason. And no, this isn't a "gummint news bad" opinion. Commercial is frequently vastly worse, and the travails of the industry have long been evident. But overt pandering is a brand-killer.
- Kaiyou 7y agoYou're assuming that the BBC successfully gets his attention. Personally, I don't even visit the BBC anymore and haven't for over a decade.
- m00x 7y agoAre you trying to say that you represent the majority of the population? What's the point of this comment?
- kragen 7y agoOJFord is presumably implying that at least one person exists who gets their attention, so not EVERYONE does that, and furthermore that OJFord is people, so doing that is to some unspecified extent actually counterproductive to getting attention from people. The entirely absurd premise you suggest is in no wise necessary for making sense of their comment, since there exist far more plausible implied premises. A much more explicit and uncut explanation is available at my comment below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20680657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20680657
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hanspeter 7y ago>> 2. I see click-bait titles like "The top 19 nutrition myths of 2019". > It's 2019. EVERYONE does this to get attention from people Even Google themselves https://www.blog.google/products/assistant/8-tips-stress-free-summer-road-trip/ https://www.blog.google/products/assistant/8-tips-stress-fre...
- kragen 7y ago> It's 2019. EVERYONE does this to get attention from people. I don't. Nobody I respect does. None of the scientific papers they cite do. Nobody in my friends list on Fecebutt does. Nobody I follow on Twitter does, to my knowledge. Slatestarcodex doesn't. HN doesn't. Wikipedia doesn't. Library Genesis doesn't. The Pirate Bay doesn't. JSTOR doesn't. Sam Zeloof doesn't. Ken Shirriff doesn't. The only sites I've visited in the last couple of days that pull that kind of bullshit are the Daily Beast, Vice, and Bloomberg, neither of which is to the trustworthiness standards of the sites and people listed above, and examine.com. It seems that you have imprisoned yourself in a sort of filter bubble of dishonest hustlers. You might want to rethink your life decisions.
- sachdevap 7y agoI am not on Twitter, I am not on Facebook. I am not on Instagram. And I am in academia. Thanks for your concern for me. The filter bubble based on headlines is your own, where you might actually be missing out on useful content, just because they used a particular headline to grab eyeballs.
- kragen 7y agoWhat was the title of your last paper? And the last paper you read?
- sachdevap 7y agoI don't think I have sufficient reason to engage this line of questioning. Have a good day, Kragen.
- kragen 7y agoWell, okay, maybe you haven't published anything yet. That's okay, we all have to start somewhere. But, when you do, here's a tip: your paper is overwhelmingly likely to get rejected if you title it something like “The top 19 myths of 2019 about efficient rank-order filtering.” :)