Starship Asterisk*

Speaking of proofreading, please do...I've noticed, at times, that words have been misspelled...and it drives me nuts. I keep wishing there was a way I could go into the comment and make the changes.

The only opinion I have on this matter is that it is of no importance whatsoever. The only people who could possibly care about whethere there's a "leading question" in the format are the ageing interweb hermits who've never engaged with the real world since Arpanet appeared. Their knickers are permanently in a twist about all manner of absurdly trivial things, but the rest of us didn't even notice.

I answered yes, but could just as easily have answered Neither Yes or No. Everything in moderation, except please please do not EVER take up the format '5 weird things you didn't know about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation' or similar. Please. :D Seriously - Thanks alot for the great work, keep it up.

The opening question can be an effective means of engaging the viewer; I have never found it annoying, though I guess it could be perceived as such by some readers if written in a particular manner. The only thing that has ever caught my eye about the APOD texts is the frequent appearance of the phrase, "of course," which after the first time I consciously recognized it became a conspicuous element thereafter; but even this is not "annoying." The texts are on the whole exceptionally well written within the inherent constraints given by the space on the page and the expected background, or lack thereof, of the intended typical interested viewer.

I voted yes, although I almost went for the yes/no. "Yes" won out for me because most of the questions have been good introductions to the topic. Today's "What will become of Jupiter's Great Red Spot?" is a very good example. Some of the leading questions have been rather superficial, and distracting.

Whether the answer is yes or no, I always appreciate the gift that APOD is to the public. Keep up the great work! (Please!)

This site displays a wide variety of examples demonstrating the beauty of our Earth and the celestial objects above in the sky. Leading the explanation with a question (like many posts) serves as a reminder of the purpose of astronomical science - to find out why things happen in our universe. I would think that it would be remiss to simply state the facts regarding the images. The question serves to guide, say, non-technical visitors to understand why certain objects are of interest, such as the Great Red Spot as featured in recent APOD showings. (Otherwise, who cares that it's shrinking? You guys would be just wasting time and money!)

There are two kinds of questions: the formulaic question just so the commentary starts with a question, and the question which draws my attention to the photo or painting so that I am looking at something unique to the photo, or to an action which will show two different sides to a problem in the photo. Read the comments after I wrote the above and was glad to see a selection of answers which agree with me. After reading the other APOD fans, two pictures I remember were the one which gave the regular spectrum and then the ultraviolet spectrum, and the first one I watched which gave the picture, and then overlaid the star chart with the star names on the picture. I also wonder about the astronomers and photographers who give me such pleasure each day with their work. If you want to add another format to your answers, a short paragraph on the workers would be interesting. Thank you for my daily wonder through the universe.

Dear Dr. N,

Thank you for many years of wonderful pictures and information.

Since you've asked, in general, I do find the leading question annoying. It's generally not fully germane to the subject at hand, and does get in the way of delivering information. But that's not to say it can't be better, or that it must be removed.

Astronomers aren't trained for writing skills, and as you attempt to delegate or automate this process (it HAS to be taking its toll) these issues are important. I could argue that a better general introduction will help lead more readers into the explanation, and that's an important part of your (our) mission - to train the public in things scientific.

At the same time I could also argue for a simple factual outline and links, leaving off all the grammar. This would enable and encourage automation and translation.

May I suggest a possible third alternative? What of a crowd-sourced function of sorts, along the lines of wiki or slashdot/soylent? It would be country specific (a different set of editors for each country) and effectively outsourced (if your local English department doesn't want to help with the task) but hopefully attract a much wider general audience than today's.

Respectfully yours,
Steven Davidian

The leading question in applicable APODs is interesting to me. Sometimes I know the answer to the question, so it's not really that big of a deal when I read the explanation. At other times I think I know the answer so I read the explanation to check. If I end up being wrong, then I learn something new; otherwise I refresh my knowledge about the subjecct matter. And then there are the times where I don't know the answer to the question at all, so I learn something new anyway. But the leading qiestion format is a great way to indicate what the explanation is about, and it also gets the minds of the readers thinking. Great job guys, keep it up!

[quote="elipongo"]I picked neither yes nor no because, to be frank, I had never explicitly noticed the leading question format until you called attention to it with this poll! I quite enjoy the write-ups as they are, and as the format has been quite transparent to me, I have to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"[/quote]

I agree.

Q: Leading Question A: Ying/Yang.
All science starts with a question, and eventually leads to a declarative. (Other than BTHOM)
Then vice-versa. Some things are known, some are wondered and some need clarification.
"What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
It is appropriate to do both.

The leading question format is immaterial, relativistically speaking. However, misspellings, incorrect punctuation, syntax and grammar, and missing words are reflectively magnified on a page such as this. Profread, pleasebittes'ilvousplaitporfavor.

[b][i]Neither clearly yes nor no. (Feel free to explain below.)[/i][/b]
¿Es conveniente que los textos explicativos de las APOD se inicien con una pregunta? Se supone que a los editores de APOD les preocupa que su trabajo llegue al mayor número posible de personas y que satisfaga a la mayoría de ellas. ¿Pero se puede contentar tanto a astrónomos profesionales como a niños que empiezan a descubrir el mundo a través de una pantalla? Tareas tan ambiciosas son más fácil de resolver consiguiendo un estilo neutro, un estilo que no se note que es estilo, algo con lo que sueñan artistas, publicistas, fabricantes (todos reconocemos un [i]vivaldi[/i], un [i]rollings[/i], un [i]velázquez[/i], un [i]bacon[/i], un[i] cádillac[/i], un [i]escarabajo[/i]...) Por cierto ( y ruego que me respondan por interés propio), ¿cómo se consigue esto?

google translator (sorry):

Is it appropriate for the explanatory texts of the APOD are initiated with a question? It is assumed that the APOD editors worry that their work reaches the widest possible audience and that will satisfy most of them. But you can satisfy both professional astronomers as children begin to discover the world through a screen? Such ambitious tasks are more easily solved by getting a neutral style, a style that is not note style, something you dream artists, publishers, producers (all recognize one [i]vivaldi[/i] a[i] rollings[/i] a [i]velazquez[/i] a [i]bacon[/i] a [i]cadillac[/i] a[i] beetle[/i] ...) For true (and beg me to respond in their own interest), how is this achieved?

)

I never really noticed that the explanation usually starts with a question. It works fine for me, but is not necessarily better than other formats you might use. I do notice grammatical errors in the text from time to time, including today's. The second sentence, while understandable, does not say what it intends to say. (It's the rate of shrinking that is accelerating, not the rate of size; size itself does not have a rate.) I've started my days with visits to the site for many years now, and if an occasional grammatical glitch is my only complaint, I'd say you are doing very well. Don't worry about it.

Your format is great! Keep it up, please!

I also ticked "neither yes nor no" and take up the option of explaining why. I would say that it is a god thing to vary the style of the explanation, but, like any other rhetorical device, the leading question approach could easily be over-used. Many scientific papers start with a leading question (I am submitting one to Nature later today) and I see no reason why APOD explanations should not do the same. Just don't overdo it.

My main reason for submitting a Yes & No answer is because I want to thank you. For the past 15+ years you have been my Home Page. Every morning I'm greeted with a photo that either gives me a better understanding of the universe or simply provides me with a pretty picture (there have been a few that defies my understanding).

So, thank you for what you provide.

Hi, I am a bio-mechanical spambot with excellent cut and paste skills. I enjoy the APOD very often. I review the past postings to refresh my mind and pick up those I missed. Questions are tiny, the sky is less tiny. I may find a question interesting, I may not. I am tiny, too 8*O Do not be too concerned with journalistic style. Folks are a bit more scattered across this, and their, Universe than we like to pretend. Do keep the pixels flowing. It does enhance my imagination, at times... it is just some information, not "The Trooth". Happy Birthday Grand Daughter Zoey! (five, today)

I always assumed the leading questions was required policy of the HAL 9000 computer which has been in charge of all our space endeavors since early this century.

Like most of the other commenters, I had never particularly noticed opening questions, so I, too, answered 'neither yes nor no'.

But now that you have drawn attention to it, it's going to act just like a spot on someone's nose - it will become impossible not to be distracted by it. Thank you very much!

I like the leading question when it's appropriate. In the case of Jupiter's spot, it's entirely appropriate since it explains the main idea in one engaging sentence.

Is it a question that haunts the APOD copywriters mind?
Until it was drawn to my attention with this poll, it was something that I'd never noticed, and I've been a regular APOD fan since it's early days.
Everyone has their own writing style and if APOD's includes the odd rhetorical question, does it really matter ?

If the caption is well written, then question or not, it's fine.

But if I may, on a different matter, as I've been given the opportunity to comment...

I check out POD to enjoy and wonder at the visual feasts within our universe and on our planet, and to learn. There is evidently no shortage of incredible, breath-taking imagery... fantastic photographs and video of the world we live in and the worlds we don't.

So why oh why include "artists impressions" in the POD? I don't want to know what someone thinks something might look like, I don't need to see conjecture; I want to see reality, fact. In my opinion "impressions" have no place on this great website and I am always disappointed when I open the page and see one.

[quote="Ludwig99b0"]Are you, in fact, entirely ignorant of the meaning of the expression [i]Leading Question[/i]? In case you are in doubt: that was a leading question.[/quote]

Whilst "leading question" has its own meaning in a legal context, in the context of a journalistic writing style, the terms "lead sentence" or "leading sentence" are common and refer to a tool to immediately capture the attention of the reader. If the sentence is a question, it could naturally be called a "leading question".

...

(FWIW, I just reviewed the last few APODs and the majority did not have leading/starting/opening questions. So, my criticism in an earlier post in this thread, is not really that relevant, and I should pay more attention.)

I think the format has run its course, perhaps? Time for a new leading-sentence trope!