3 ms·
I think part of the issue is that the title is a bit clickbait-y. Sure, it’s technically a correct title, but at first glance it seems much more interesting tha
by monkpit 6y ago
I think part of the issue is that the title is a bit clickbait-y. Sure, it’s technically a correct title, but at first glance it seems much more interesting than it actually is.
- dnautics 6y agoHow would you fix it? "Astronomer finds an exoplanet which fits exclusion criteria if WOW! Signal is intelligent in origin"?
- billforsternz 6y agoI would fix it by not printing it at all because it's a click bait title with no substantial underlying story.
- privong 6y ago> How would you fix it? "Astronomer finds an exoplanet which fits exclusion criteria if WOW! Signal is intelligent in origin"? As far as I can tell there's not even evidence of an exoplanet around that star (likely because that star hasn't been searched for evidence of an exoplanet). The arXiv preprint basically amounts to "Identification of a Sun-like star in the same part of the sky where the 'Wow' signal originated."
- Beldin 6y ago> "Identification of a Sun-like star in the same part of the sky where the 'Wow' signal originated." Even that is clickbaity - it fails to account how likely it was to find such a star in that volume of space. That would at least offer some analysis of the situation.
- privong 6y ago> Even that is clickbaity - it fails to account how likely it was to find such a star in that volume of space. Yeah. I should've been more clear that I was only meaning that as a summary of the article, not as a replacement title.