Fair argument. I didn't put too much rigorous thought into my post, and really didn't mean offence, but to roughly explain my thinking: - First, I wasn't tryi

Fair argument. I didn't put too much rigorous thought into my post, and really didn't mean offence, but to roughly explain my thinking: - First, I wasn't trying to dismiss any opinions by bringing up survivorship bias, I brought it up because I think it's valuable to have a term to describe the general and probably bi-directional relationship between how notable something is and how well it's known many years after creation - I'd argue that the original comment's footnote [0] talking about "classic" papers is explicitly bringing survivorship, if not the survivorship bias, into the conversation. Honestly, at this point I've kinda lost track of what I wanted to clarify here, so - I apologize for the confusion and, if interpreted as such, the offensive posting. Have a good day.