3 ms·
Thank you, dang for all that you do! The title resonated and was consumed when it was more accessible, but now the scientific name makes the conclusions inacces
by dzink 3y ago
Thank you, dang for all that you do! The title resonated and was consumed when it was more accessible, but now the scientific name makes the conclusions inaccessible to most readers, and it went quickly below the fold. The question is do we communicate the insight or let the sophisticated language burry the information. You can change it to anything you like, as always, but I think it would help to make the title more accessible.
- dang 3y agoI'm not sure I'd agree with the interpretation "the scientific name makes the conclusions inaccessible to most readers". It's not that abstruse, and if instead of editorializing the title you had posted a comment to the thread explaining the paper's findings and what's interesting about them, that might have worked fine, and would have stayed within the site rules. Of course no handful of simple rules can cover the nuances of all cases and I don't mean to say they work perfectly.
- sdwr 3y agoHad to think about "homozygosity" for a bit. The science jargon makes my brain turn off. I thought the original title was translating, not editorializing (maybe clickbaity to leave out the [small] effect size).