5 ms·

56 pages! They should really reorganize this into 10-16 pages to get the basic ideas and results across.

tacos 12y ago
I read it, started to doze off, forced myself to dig in, and was left with the feeling they just redefined the Constant of Integration as part of their own mystery lingo. It shouldn't be like this. Sheesh.
shas3 12y ago
There's a place for brevity, but not in this paper. You are assuming somehow that there is redundancy in the paper. There doesn't seem to be, at first glance. The scope of the paper is large enough to merit the length.
- therobot24 12y ago
  I'm not assuming redundancy, i'm assuming what every academic does - that the author(s) should be able to concisely and accurately present their work. There's plenty of examples where complex ideas and derivations can make the journal page limit (which does vary, but i think 16 pages is good), no reason this one can't as well.
jsyedidia 12y ago
What a strange attitude! There's plenty of zero-cost bits available to allow for articles of all sorts of lengths. For example, the "Foundations and Trends" journals (e.g. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, or Foundations and Trends in Optimization) publish articles that are usually at least 100 pages long. These articles tend to be well-respected and highly cited. Longer articles have many advantages in allowing for a more in-depth explanation, and it is certainly not the case that every reader wants papers shoe-horned into an artificial page limit.
- therobot24 12y ago
  > There's plenty of zero-cost bits available to allow for articles of all sorts of lengths. Straw man - i wasn't talking about cost, hard drive space, or any relation near what you're referring to. > ...articles that are usually at least 100 pages long. These articles tend to be well-respected and highly cited. Another straw man - why does length (short or long) correlate with quality again? > Longer articles have many advantages in allowing for a more in-depth explanation Ah the real comment. Ok. I definitely agree - longer usually means more space to explain. > and it is certainly not the case that every reader wants papers shoe-horned into an artificial page limit. So be it. There's usually an appendix or supplementary materials that can offer expanded derivations. Often the authors trim a lot of the fat for the published paper and put a longer version in a book/thesis. > What a strange attitude! As a writer of publications i want more space and agree, but as a reader of publications (way more than i write) there's just too much out there to spend my time going through 50+ pages. I can put in the time for 10-20 pages and if i still want more i'll check out other publications, appendix, supplementary, thesis...whatever. It's an important and necessary skill for academics to be able to concisely present their work - not just for publications, but for grant applications, presentations, etc.
  - jsyedidia 12y ago
    If you don't like to read long articles, don't read them. I like to read them; they tend to be much easier to understand than artificially shortened articles. It seems to me that complaining that somebody wrote a long article because they take too long for you to read is exactly analogous to saying that since you only like to read short stories, nobody should write a long novel because it would take too much time for you to read.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    Academic writing is dense. When you shorten the page limit, you force authors to make it denser, to explain less and rely more on the readers' previous knowledge. As a writer, I'm often surprised how easy it is fill pages and pages, and as a reader, I'd rather read clear expository prose than wizardly hand-waving.
nmrm 12y ago
Arbitrary page limits cause far more harm than good in academic writing. Dissertations and journal articles are some of the most readable and useful academic publications in computer science precisely because this attitude of "16 pages of bits ought to be enough for anyone" isn't enforced. Without artificial page limits, it's possible to explain an idea from the ground up without taking shortcuts. Enforcing a prohibitive page limit is far more likely to force clever writing than good communication.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
Maybe you should stick to twitter.

tacos 12y ago

I read it, started to doze off, forced myself to dig in, and was left with the feeling they just redefined the Constant of Integration as part of their own mystery lingo. It shouldn't be like this. Sheesh.

shas3 12y ago

There's a place for brevity, but not in this paper. You are assuming somehow that there is redundancy in the paper. There doesn't seem to be, at first glance. The scope of the paper is large enough to merit the length.

therobot24 12y ago
I'm not assuming redundancy, i'm assuming what every academic does - that the author(s) should be able to concisely and accurately present their work. There's plenty of examples where complex ideas and derivations can make the journal page limit (which does vary, but i think 16 pages is good), no reason this one can't as well.

jsyedidia 12y ago

What a strange attitude! There's plenty of zero-cost bits available to allow for articles of all sorts of lengths. For example, the "Foundations and Trends" journals (e.g. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, or Foundations and Trends in Optimization) publish articles that are usually at least 100 pages long. These articles tend to be well-respected and highly cited. Longer articles have many advantages in allowing for a more in-depth explanation, and it is certainly not the case that every reader wants papers shoe-horned into an artificial page limit.

therobot24 12y ago
> There's plenty of zero-cost bits available to allow for articles of all sorts of lengths. Straw man - i wasn't talking about cost, hard drive space, or any relation near what you're referring to. > ...articles that are usually at least 100 pages long. These articles tend to be well-respected and highly cited. Another straw man - why does length (short or long) correlate with quality again? > Longer articles have many advantages in allowing for a more in-depth explanation Ah the real comment. Ok. I definitely agree - longer usually means more space to explain. > and it is certainly not the case that every reader wants papers shoe-horned into an artificial page limit. So be it. There's usually an appendix or supplementary materials that can offer expanded derivations. Often the authors trim a lot of the fat for the published paper and put a longer version in a book/thesis. > What a strange attitude! As a writer of publications i want more space and agree, but as a reader of publications (way more than i write) there's just too much out there to spend my time going through 50+ pages. I can put in the time for 10-20 pages and if i still want more i'll check out other publications, appendix, supplementary, thesis...whatever. It's an important and necessary skill for academics to be able to concisely present their work - not just for publications, but for grant applications, presentations, etc.
- jsyedidia 12y ago
  If you don't like to read long articles, don't read them. I like to read them; they tend to be much easier to understand than artificially shortened articles. It seems to me that complaining that somebody wrote a long article because they take too long for you to read is exactly analogous to saying that since you only like to read short stories, nobody should write a long novel because it would take too much time for you to read.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Academic writing is dense. When you shorten the page limit, you force authors to make it denser, to explain less and rely more on the readers' previous knowledge. As a writer, I'm often surprised how easy it is fill pages and pages, and as a reader, I'd rather read clear expository prose than wizardly hand-waving.

nmrm 12y ago

Arbitrary page limits cause far more harm than good in academic writing. Dissertations and journal articles are some of the most readable and useful academic publications in computer science precisely because this attitude of "16 pages of bits ought to be enough for anyone" isn't enforced. Without artificial page limits, it's possible to explain an idea from the ground up without taking shortcuts. Enforcing a prohibitive page limit is far more likely to force clever writing than good communication.

GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago

Maybe you should stick to twitter.