by RJN » Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:28 pm
Joan Girones wrote:
That means that, in fact, the users of Catalan mirror don’t read these pages.
First, I welcome discussions of this type as they have the potential to make APOD stronger. Next, I am a bit surprised by these results but not very surprised. A perhaps helpful bit of background is that that the APOD explanation is meant to be a resource on a variety of levels, not just on the most popular level. APOD is read by many professional astronomers and by many people who teach astronomy. These people, although in the vast minority by number, might appreciate a bit more depth to the explanations than the text given and the popular links given. Still, these people, especially the teachers, might be able to translate the additional depth given by the journal links into a better lecture or presentation. In fact, I have had a professional astronomer tell me just that -- that he really doesn't read the APOD text but looks for links that give more detailed information. I also picture, in my mind's eye, that some students do reports on APOD-related images and would also appreciate additional depth. Last, some people might not believe that the information given in the APOD explanation is at the state-of-the-art for what professional astronomers might believe. These journal links might work to correct this potential misunderstanding.
Perhaps your underlying point is that we are saddling the APOD reader with unwanted links and hence watering down the whole "APOD experience". Unfortunately, that is correct. Therefore each link must balance the good and the bad aspects of including it. Therefore, perhaps, there is no right or wrong answer to each question on link inclusion, but rather each link choice is a journalistic style not unlike word choice.
- RJN
[quote="Joan Girones"]
That means that, in fact, the users of Catalan mirror don’t read these pages.
[/quote]
First, I welcome discussions of this type as they have the potential to make APOD stronger. Next, I am a bit surprised by these results but not very surprised. A perhaps helpful bit of background is that that the APOD explanation is meant to be a resource on a variety of levels, not just on the most popular level. APOD is read by many professional astronomers and by many people who teach astronomy. These people, although in the vast minority by number, might appreciate a bit more depth to the explanations than the text given and the popular links given. Still, these people, especially the teachers, might be able to translate the additional depth given by the journal links into a better lecture or presentation. In fact, I have had a professional astronomer tell me just that -- that he really doesn't read the APOD text but looks for links that give more detailed information. I also picture, in my mind's eye, that some students do reports on APOD-related images and would also appreciate additional depth. Last, some people might not believe that the information given in the APOD explanation is at the state-of-the-art for what professional astronomers might believe. These journal links might work to correct this potential misunderstanding.
Perhaps your underlying point is that we are saddling the APOD reader with unwanted links and hence watering down the whole "APOD experience". Unfortunately, that is correct. Therefore each link must balance the good and the bad aspects of including it. Therefore, perhaps, there is no right or wrong answer to each question on link inclusion, but rather each link choice is a journalistic style not unlike word choice.
- RJN