3 ms·
This article reveals how Scientific American has declined over time. It has become a mere shadow of its former self, resorting to sensationalism for online eng
by rsecora 3y ago
This article reveals how Scientific American has declined over time.
It has become a mere shadow of its former self, resorting to sensationalism for online engagement.
I understand the need for the magazine to cater to an audience, but how was this article even approved? It lacks specifics, relies on common knowledge, lacks relevant studies or investigations. It's nothing but clickbait.
- lozenge 3y agoIf it's accurate and has higher readership, what's the harm? I found it useful. Re topics, it is a shame for the regular readers if they have limited themselves to the short list of high SEO performing topics. But it would be hypocritical to complain about it from a link aggregator site where the article has only reached the front page due to this choice of a popular interest topic. When did you cancel your subscription?
- madsbuch 3y ago> If it's accurate and has higher readership, what's the harm? The other commenter argued that it relies on common knowledge as opposed to scientific knowledge. That's the harm. Especially for a journal claiming to be scientific.