tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5011576478090146015.post8796367853151490854..comments2023-10-17T11:26:43.852-04:00Comments on NeurRealism: What are you writing that will be read in 10 years?Michelle Greenehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09013133419305271189noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5011576478090146015.post-80667498020655416362011-01-25T23:30:44.092-05:002011-01-25T23:30:44.092-05:00Thanks for the constructive suggestions. :)Thanks for the constructive suggestions. :)Michelle Greenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09013133419305271189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5011576478090146015.post-71576093132329221232011-01-25T11:55:21.657-05:002011-01-25T11:55:21.657-05:00Great post. "TERRIFIC QUESTION", I added...Great post. "TERRIFIC QUESTION", I added to my cut and paste notes with URL, on disk.<br /><br />But one problem (global; nothing in particular to do with THIS post): your blog is nearly physically unreadable. Thin white sans-serif type on a black background is horrible. Even increasing the size (control-+) helps only a little. And highlighting all (edit: select: all) helps only slightly, turning the body text to a medium blue that is only slightly more readable. If I were going to hang out here and be a regular reader (which I might, though have to read a few more posts) I would be reduced to having to edit:select-all:copy and paste to a notepad window, just to READ the sucker! <br /><br />White type on black background is GREAT as an opening splash screen, for visual effect. It is very striking. I like using it myself. But it IS NOT FOR **READING**.<br /><br />This white-on-black thing is one (among many) reflection of what I call the marginalization of content: the message getting buried in a heap of formatting complexity, weirdness, garishness, inappropriateness, etc.Alan2102https://www.blogger.com/profile/03077725184637352859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5011576478090146015.post-78780454512918071412011-01-19T15:44:42.589-05:002011-01-19T15:44:42.589-05:00It's a pretty apt description.It's a pretty apt description.Michelle Greenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09013133419305271189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5011576478090146015.post-58685864292052482492011-01-16T23:29:32.987-05:002011-01-16T23:29:32.987-05:00I can't recall who said this, but I thought it...I can't recall who said this, but I thought it was a good analogy, one researcher I met once likened research science funding to venture capitalism, essentially funding the randomness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5011576478090146015.post-20220405519503059882011-01-16T10:56:05.766-05:002011-01-16T10:56:05.766-05:00Is it the scientific method that's broken, or ...Is it the scientific method that's broken, or the funding system? Science is a low-yield beast, and we need our representatives knowing and accepting this.<br /><br />@ M, no nothing is perfect or immune from abuse, but I'm heartened that we're asking the question of how to get better metrics.Michelle Greenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09013133419305271189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5011576478090146015.post-45931036313572688612011-01-15T22:12:28.752-05:002011-01-15T22:12:28.752-05:00Your bibliometrics comment got me thinking about h...Your bibliometrics comment got me thinking about how its done... so I went and looked up some of the common approaches currently used. I tried ReaderMeter and I skimmed some of the articles you recommend in the side-bar. Looks like fun, but I don't see how these metrics would be immune to abuses by scientists who use their peer-review positions to force others to cite their work. <br /><br />Just sayin'<br /><br />MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5011576478090146015.post-70981991779805551052011-01-15T15:41:04.125-05:002011-01-15T15:41:04.125-05:00Nice post. These days, it's hard to imagine be...Nice post. These days, it's hard to imagine being able to do REAL science. You get grant money and you gotta produce something, no matter what, so you're forced to fish through you data for "significant" findings. The scientific method is broken indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com