Difference between revisions of "Talk:1847: Dubious Study"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
Line 3: Line 3:
  
 
"downloaded bi-annually" is misleadingly close to "released bi-annually" --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:03, 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)
+
: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)
 
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)

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)