2 ms·

I notice how the title by Ars Technica is much less baity than Nature: "Why have papers by one of history’s most famous physicists been retracted?" vs "Why did

I notice how the title by Ars Technica is much less baity than Nature: "Why have papers by one of history’s most famous physicists been retracted?" vs "Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?"

WesolyKubeczek 3mo ago
It’s almost like Nature doesn’t expect its readers to know who this Max Planck guy is. :-)
- zugi 3mo ago
  Exactly, it seems that HN can assume a certain level of scientific knowledge among its readers that Nature can't.
  - gpvos 3mo ago
    If Ars can, then HN definitely can.
  - phalangion 3mo ago
    Nah. It’s all part of the clickbait. You want to know which physicist, so you click
  - mhurron 3mo ago
    Well it would seem that the AAAS shouldn't assume that about HN readers. The previous posted article was posted on science.org, managed by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) not Nature, which is a British publication. The organization that did the removal was Springer Nature, parent of the publisher of Nature. It was reported in several places, the one linked here was on a site affiliated by a completely different organization. Also, science.org is open to everyone, their articles are written and titled for any level of knowledge and any background. Ars and HN are very specific in their target audience and write to that. Even then the comments will be filled with complaints if things aren't written in a manner approachable to anyone.
squidbeak 3mo ago
It's still clickbait and a good example of how infantile these publications are today. Ars and Nature really should be above all these bullshit headline games, but the fact they aren't explains a large part of their general degradation.
gpvos 3mo ago
For starters, Ars shouldn't write "this journal" when it's about another publication than themselves.
talon8635 3mo ago
Using “this X” in the title is the definition of bait to me. They could, in as many characters, say the journals name. But they don’t specifically in order to bait you into clicking to find out which journal.

WesolyKubeczek 3mo ago

It’s almost like Nature doesn’t expect its readers to know who this Max Planck guy is. :-)

zugi 3mo ago
Exactly, it seems that HN can assume a certain level of scientific knowledge among its readers that Nature can't.
- gpvos 3mo ago
  If Ars can, then HN definitely can.
- phalangion 3mo ago
  Nah. It’s all part of the clickbait. You want to know which physicist, so you click
- mhurron 3mo ago
  Well it would seem that the AAAS shouldn't assume that about HN readers. The previous posted article was posted on science.org, managed by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) not Nature, which is a British publication. The organization that did the removal was Springer Nature, parent of the publisher of Nature. It was reported in several places, the one linked here was on a site affiliated by a completely different organization. Also, science.org is open to everyone, their articles are written and titled for any level of knowledge and any background. Ars and HN are very specific in their target audience and write to that. Even then the comments will be filled with complaints if things aren't written in a manner approachable to anyone.

squidbeak 3mo ago

It's still clickbait and a good example of how infantile these publications are today. Ars and Nature really should be above all these bullshit headline games, but the fact they aren't explains a large part of their general degradation.

gpvos 3mo ago

For starters, Ars shouldn't write "this journal" when it's about another publication than themselves.

talon8635 3mo ago

Using “this X” in the title is the definition of bait to me. They could, in as many characters, say the journals name. But they don’t specifically in order to bait you into clicking to find out which journal.