3 ms·

I think you’re overstating the case when you say it’s a burden. All of us google stuff all the time so that’s not a huge burden either. It’s just more efficie

• arnarbi 5y ago
  The majority of readers might very well find it inefficient if words are wasted on explaining things they are familiar with. It can also turn people off the content. If an article on woodworking (my hobby) explains what a cap iron is, I’m likely to move on because I don’t think I’ll learn anything new there.
  • natch 5y ago
    I addressed this in another comment. Skipping over a known definition is something our eyes and brains do very quickly and easily. It's not going to slow down a reader who already knows. As far as turning off some readers, on the one hand, that's natural and unavoidable, if the reader detects the article isn't of interest. There's no obligation that all articles should be interesting to all readers. But defining the basic topic is table stakes. And on the other hand, the case here is slightly different from what you describe, as well. It's an article about why something went away. So even if it started with saying what that thing is, the main content might still be interesting to someone who already knew what that thing was.