I don't have much to add on the topic itself, but anyone else find this article written kind of oddly? (Or, if you thought it was great, please disagree! Always looking for ways to improve my own...
I don't have much to add on the topic itself, but anyone else find this article written kind of oddly? (Or, if you thought it was great, please disagree! Always looking for ways to improve my own communication.) If I had to describe my reaction, I think just a combo of slightly odd phrasing/flow and overly enthusiastic descriptions?
Anyway, I ended up finding the abstract itself (plus 'snippets') to read, if anyone else is interested:
Off-topic, but anyone else notice this recent change Elsevier is trying with "Snippets"? I like that the full Intro is usually included to provide background info, but the Methods/Results/Discussion snippets are so short as to be pretty useless, as far as I can tell.
That's probably because it's not really an article meant for general consumption. It's an official Press Release by the Natural History Museum, which was then republished on various other sites...
anyone else find this article written kind of oddly?
p.s. I have changed the link to the original NHM source, since AFAICT ScienceNetDaily added nothing of value to the press release. They merely changed the title, and added some completely unnecessary sub-headings.
Ahh, thanks. I still hold that some info is framed a bit out of sync in the original, but gives context about how each author is introduced. And, I'm usually a major proponent of 'chunking'...
Ahh, thanks. I still hold that some info is framed a bit out of sync in the original, but gives context about how each author is introduced. And, I'm usually a major proponent of 'chunking' information but the original feels better without the hedged-in subheaders. Interesting how such small shifts impact perception :)
I don't have much to add on the topic itself, but anyone else find this article written kind of oddly? (Or, if you thought it was great, please disagree! Always looking for ways to improve my own communication.) If I had to describe my reaction, I think just a combo of slightly odd phrasing/flow and overly enthusiastic descriptions?
Anyway, I ended up finding the abstract itself (plus 'snippets') to read, if anyone else is interested:
Off-topic, but anyone else notice this recent change Elsevier is trying with "Snippets"? I like that the full Intro is usually included to provide background info, but the Methods/Results/Discussion snippets are so short as to be pretty useless, as far as I can tell.
That's probably because it's not really an article meant for general consumption. It's an official Press Release by the Natural History Museum, which was then republished on various other sites (like Phys.org and ScienceNetDaily).
p.s. I have changed the link to the original NHM source, since AFAICT ScienceNetDaily added nothing of value to the press release. They merely changed the title, and added some completely unnecessary sub-headings.
Ahh, thanks. I still hold that some info is framed a bit out of sync in the original, but gives context about how each author is introduced. And, I'm usually a major proponent of 'chunking' information but the original feels better without the hedged-in subheaders. Interesting how such small shifts impact perception :)