Difference between revisions of "Talk:1847: Dubious Study"
| (9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--> | ||
The name of the organisation is suggestive of legitimacy but rather vague. That would be a red flag for me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166|108.162.245.166]] 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | The name of the organisation is suggestive of legitimacy but rather vague. That would be a red flag for me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166|108.162.245.166]] 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | "downloaded bi-annually" is misleadingly close to "released bi-annually" --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| + | :but I would understand it as if the Journal was only downloaded twice within a year, i.e. only two people have downloaded (and maybe read) the Journal so far. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.118|162.158.92.118]] 08:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The National Academy of Proceedings sounds more like a legal document collection than a scientific journal to me. [[User:Gjgfuj|TheSandromatic]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Although biannual conventionally means twice a year, its conflation with biennial (once every two years) is quite common. It would not be unthinkable that this confusion was intentional. ~~108.162.246.71, 15:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| + | :I would only think the confusion was intentional if it was the other way around. If Randall had used "biennially", I could believe the idea was to let people think it was "biannual" - twice a year - but it's even more pathetic, only every two years. To fit in with the rest (letting people read "peer-viewed" as "peer-reviewed" for example) :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.64|108.162.219.64]] 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | What size should the references be? 6 pixels is far too small. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.150|141.101.107.150]] 11:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| + | :When I saw it yesterday I could ALMOST read it, but I did end up having to zoom in. It's definitely bigger now, I say it's good now. It's bordering on too big for the gag. :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.64|108.162.219.64]] 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Also my comment! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 08:18, 13 June 2017
The name of the organisation is suggestive of legitimacy but rather vague. That would be a red flag for me. 108.162.245.166 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
"downloaded bi-annually" is misleadingly close to "released bi-annually" --JakubNarebski (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- but I would understand it as if the Journal was only downloaded twice within a year, i.e. only two people have downloaded (and maybe read) the Journal so far. 162.158.92.118 08:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The National Academy of Proceedings sounds more like a legal document collection than a scientific journal to me. TheSandromatic (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Although biannual conventionally means twice a year, its conflation with biennial (once every two years) is quite common. It would not be unthinkable that this confusion was intentional. ~~108.162.246.71, 15:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would only think the confusion was intentional if it was the other way around. If Randall had used "biennially", I could believe the idea was to let people think it was "biannual" - twice a year - but it's even more pathetic, only every two years. To fit in with the rest (letting people read "peer-viewed" as "peer-reviewed" for example) :) - NiceGuy1 108.162.219.64 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. NiceGuy1 (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
What size should the references be? 6 pixels is far too small. 141.101.107.150 11:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- When I saw it yesterday I could ALMOST read it, but I did end up having to zoom in. It's definitely bigger now, I say it's good now. It's bordering on too big for the gag. :) - NiceGuy1 108.162.219.64 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Also my comment! NiceGuy1 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
