My understanding, from the article, is that it was the text on the bio. I suppose the text in an introduction could be similarly weighted in the receiver's mind

My understanding, from the article, is that it was the text on the bio. I suppose the text in an introduction could be similarly weighted in the receiver's mind. So does an incredibly shitty introduction with a great picture warrant a response? How about a mediocre intro with a good picture? Where is the tipping point? How does one sift the wheat from the chaff?