4 ms·
I don't really consider myself a fast reader, but I was able to get the broad strokes in about 1 and half minutes (timed it). Articles like these are 80% filler
by bluejellybean 5y ago
I don't really consider myself a fast reader, but I was able to get the broad strokes in about 1 and half minutes (timed it). Articles like these are 80% filler and the first sentence of two can generally tell you what the rest is about. If you can find the keywords in those first couple sentences, hint, they're typically the long ones, you can get the gist of everything very quickly. It's typically an idea or group of ideas that is interesting, not a specific line or word, and if I find something curious, it's at that time I'll choose to go slow or even stop to think about it.
- emodendroket 5y agoIf an article only merits that form of "reading" I'd rather spend my time with something else.
- bluejellybean 5y agoWhich is why I don't read the articles the vast majority of the time. It's rare that I find an article worth reading slowly, but when I do, I slow down and read it. I come to this forum for the comments, not for poorly written articles with low amount of substance. Certain blogs or websites I'll read at a slow pace, because of historic experiences showing the quality is high or will spur interesting comments. Pg is a good example, I'll read those slowly as I find the writing to have a large amount of interesting ideas. Contrasted to the article in this thread, the idea isn't very new or interesting to me, and the signal to noise ratio isn't exactly good. When the signal to noise is bad so often, I want to spend my time with something else as well, and why I choose not to waste 10 minutes reading it when only a couple will suffice.