For the record, I did read the article, but my life is not significantly richer (or poorer) for having done so.
A classic technique for reading scientific papers, is to read the abstract, then the conclusion. If they motivate us to read the rest, then we do so.
What I often do here, is first check the comments, and see if I want to go and read the OP. If I do that, I’ll generally read it all; unless it’s really painful.
As a prolix author[0] (and commenter[1]), I’m fairly familiar with low reader engagement, and I’ve learned to do good abstracts/intro sentences that hook the reader.
I’ve also learned not to lose too much sleep over whether or not people read my stuff (spoiler: they don’t).
I write for my own satisfaction. It would be nice if others enjoyed it, but I won’t live or die by the opinions of others.
Don’t get me wrong; I do care what others think of me, but it isn’t a principal driver of my life.
I have great respect for good tech writers. The world needs more of them.
A lot of what I write is basic information. It needs to be complete, clear and concise; not great literature. A simple ToC is useful in these cases, and good information architecture is important.
If I really want others to read my stuff, it’s incumbent upon me to write short, brutally-edited, articles, with clear, succinct, paragraphs, “hooky” abstracts, and conclusions that encourage people to go back, and read what they missed.
Basically, my experience is that it’s my job to write stuff in a way that encourages reader engagement, and to lead them to the important components of the document.
Abstract and conclusion are useful for quickly determining what the authors want the takeaway to be, so they're better than journalism which can misconstrue even that. But the problem with reading just the abstract and conclusion is that you don't learn the methods the scientists used. Lots of science is junk due to bad methodology. Of course laypersons are not likely able to determine that even if they read the whole thing, which leaves me to conclude that you should never modify your world view in response to a scientific publication until many credible sources all say the same thing.
For the record, I did read the article, but my life is not significantly richer (or poorer) for having done so.
A classic technique for reading scientific papers, is to read the abstract, then the conclusion. If they motivate us to read the rest, then we do so.
What I often do here, is first check the comments, and see if I want to go and read the OP. If I do that, I’ll generally read it all; unless it’s really painful.
As a prolix author[0] (and commenter[1]), I’m fairly familiar with low reader engagement, and I’ve learned to do good abstracts/intro sentences that hook the reader.
I’ve also learned not to lose too much sleep over whether or not people read my stuff (spoiler: they don’t).
I write for my own satisfaction. It would be nice if others enjoyed it, but I won’t live or die by the opinions of others.
Don’t get me wrong; I do care what others think of me, but it isn’t a principal driver of my life.
I have great respect for good tech writers. The world needs more of them.
A lot of what I write is basic information. It needs to be complete, clear and concise; not great literature. A simple ToC is useful in these cases, and good information architecture is important.
If I really want others to read my stuff, it’s incumbent upon me to write short, brutally-edited, articles, with clear, succinct, paragraphs, “hooky” abstracts, and conclusions that encourage people to go back, and read what they missed.
Basically, my experience is that it’s my job to write stuff in a way that encourages reader engagement, and to lead them to the important components of the document.
[0] https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ChrisMarshallNY