I am the very model of a modern science article
September 27, 2010 8:57 AM   Subscribe

 
I don't see how you could argue with that. It has a triceratops with an eyepatch.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:00 AM on September 27, 2010 [6 favorites]


This is a comment about how weak the link is, and complaining that this sort of bit has been done, better and before, on the blue.
posted by stenseng at 9:00 AM on September 27, 2010 [4 favorites]




Heh. I was about to tell you that you should have linked to a cached or screenshot version before the Guardian notices and takes down its template, but... turns out I'm pleasantly surprised and amused.
posted by olinerd at 9:02 AM on September 27, 2010


How timely. Thank you for sharing this discovery with us.
posted by needs more cowbell at 9:03 AM on September 27, 2010


I don't see how you could argue with that. It has a triceratops with an eyepatch.

That, good sir, is no eye patch! It is poorly drawn sunglasses!!!!11!!1! (That was my reply in outrage at your incorrect observation)
posted by filthy light thief at 9:04 AM on September 27, 2010


This fragment will be put on its own line for no obvious reason.
posted by stargell at 9:05 AM on September 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


This paragraph contained useful information or context, but was removed by the sub-editor to keep the article within an arbitrary word limit in case the internet runs out of space.

I love that. I primarily read newspapers online but I still read articles constrained by the limits of the paper edition. It's even better when the article is about something on the Internet but they don't actually link to it.
posted by octothorpe at 9:05 AM on September 27, 2010 [3 favorites]


I was about to tell you that you should have linked to a cached or screenshot version before the Guardian notices and takes down its template

This reminded me of the time that Dick Cheney was pronounced dead and "UK's Favorite Grandmother" (more amusing gaffs: Wikipedia list of premature obituaries).
posted by filthy light thief at 9:10 AM on September 27, 2010


There's an extra joke burried in the context of the links at the bottom of the page.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 9:11 AM on September 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


Nicely done snark.
posted by bearwife at 9:12 AM on September 27, 2010


I must cite this in my next revelation
posted by The Lady is a designer at 9:15 AM on September 27, 2010


The not-linking-to-the-paper thing is egregarious, and all too common. There's even a ISO-standard way to do it, which is rapidly becoming the way to cite an on-line paper.
posted by bonehead at 9:20 AM on September 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


Ha!
posted by ob at 9:22 AM on September 27, 2010


I don't think this guy knows what search engine optimization means. Unless that is another, meta joke on top of the meta joke.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:23 AM on September 27, 2010


I'm nearly weeping at my desk. That was beautiful.
posted by Uniformitarianism Now! at 9:25 AM on September 27, 2010


Pioneering usage AFAIK: XTC's Go 2 cover 'art'.
posted by jet_silver at 9:28 AM on September 27, 2010


YAKAWOW!!!
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 9:32 AM on September 27, 2010


That was superb.

Also, l33tpolicywonk, every one of the links at the bottom of the page is making an appropriate joke.
posted by Decani at 9:35 AM on September 27, 2010


Five bucks says he got tenure for that.
posted by timsteil at 9:37 AM on September 27, 2010


The "Related Links" (at the bottom of the page) are priceless.
posted by spock at 9:38 AM on September 27, 2010


The comments thread has some real gems in it too.


This is a comment where I question the relevance of such an article in a serious newspaper, thus making it clear to all who read it that I have not actually read the article, or noticed which part of the website it is in or what the headline is.

I will also question the temporal and monetary value of the article to myself, despite not having paid any money to read the article, and having chosen freely to spend my time reading the article AND commenting on it.

*******


GrrlScientist

27 September 2010 12:44PM

this comment is from your favorite spelling and punctuation troll, who will tell you that there is an error in your piece and based on that, it's no wonder you are employed as a poorly-paid reporter by a total rag. if you don't work at a piece of shit paper, then this troll will demand to know how you managed to be employed by a respectable paper that also has a certain famous person (who is much better than you ever will be) on its payroll.

*********

pmberry

27 September 2010 1:01PM

This comment has been hastily typed by someone who hasn't really read the article fully. They intended to but got about halfway down before their eyes glazed over and the compulsion to start writing the comment--that was already forming in their brain after the first paragraph--got too strong and they simply had to type it into the comments box.

Now they slightly regret being so hasty, especially with other commenters now pulling them up on the bits of the article that they'd obviously skipped.

It's nearly 1pm so lunch hour is over and it's back to work and no quickly viewing comment pieces linked from Twitter for them. However they will keep checking back furtively for the rest of the afternoon to see if anyone's recommended their comment or even replied. Should get the serotonin flowing for a few fleeting seconds...

***********

Synchronium

27 September 2010 1:04PM

This comment contains an unrelated, yet controversial opinion on Richard Dawkins.

posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:39 AM on September 27, 2010 [15 favorites]


Needs more: "A growing number..." and "Increasingly..."
posted by Trochanter at 9:41 AM on September 27, 2010 [5 favorites]


This comment will tickle MetaFilter readers pink, and express what they were already thinking in a somewhat witty manner, thus garnering favorites. It will also get flagged by some who surmise (correctly) that I'm favorite-whoring.
posted by explosion at 9:42 AM on September 27, 2010 [13 favorites]


The sad thing is, most science articles would be sharply improved if they had adhered to this formula.

Nice post!
posted by jamjam at 9:44 AM on September 27, 2010


HenryS

27 September 2010 1:24PM

This highly emotional comment is from someone who is affected by the medical condition addressed by the research in the article, who spends several paragraphs relating their personal experience of said condition in great detail, before going to express great hope for the future now that this research has been published, thus demonstrating that no amount of bland platitudes and caveats in the original article can fully address the fact that people, especially distressed people, read and understand only what they want to read and understand.

********

DonkeyWan

27 September 2010 1:50PM

This comment is overly long and containing an inexplicable number of very long words to make the author seem far more intelligent than the content of the comment suggests. In addition the length of the comment has the sole aim of catching the attention of the reader who, having read the first 10 to 15 comments and then having realised how many more comments there are, has started scrolling down rapidly and randomly stopping at the larger than normal posts in the hope that something amusing or with incite/insight has been posted there. The length of the comment increases the chances of random stops while also giving the comment itself an air of gravitas, since only the most self-serving of individuals would spend an aeon posting a lengthy response with zero content in the hope that it will recieve lots of recommendations, thereby validating their existence.

The start of a second paragraph in this comment offers the illusion of intent and detailed analysis. It suggests to the superficial scanner that this comment has some in-depth knowledge merely because it is so long and arduous to read. By now most readers will have stopped reading and instead went looking for the salient points in the post in the hope that a surface skim would offer enough detail to ingest the key concerns contained in the comment. As such padding can now be used without fear of criticism from eagle-eyed analysts; Hitler, cats, chocolate, chocolate-flavoured Hitler cats who speak German but speak in cat language, but with a German accent.

This final line will be short and pithy, an attempt to capture the essence of the meaningless meanderings above, end on a terrible pun that will be most frequently quoted by other commentators taking the poster to task; this article is a real kick in the eyebrows to football fans with an interest in medical medicines.

********

malcolmcoles

27 September 2010 2:11PM

This is a comment where I question the relevance of such an article in a serious newspaper, thus making it clear to all who read it that I have not actually read the article, or noticed which part of the website it is in or what the headline is.

This comment copies some copy from earlier in the page and tries to pass it off as its own in order to disguse the fact that it's only here to drop a link to some rolex watches for sale. Buy Rolexes

posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:51 AM on September 27, 2010 [3 favorites]


Wow. So. This comment is a five-paragraph-long mini-essay from a graduate student working on a dissertation about this topic. I begin by expressing surprise at everyone's sudden interest in my tiny field, in a sort of aw-shucks tone, but quickly get down to business.

First, I establish some context and throw in enough useful links to bring the lay reader up to speed on the topic in question. My explanation is succinct and elegant and far superior to that of the linked article, which is for some reason riddled with either dubious ideas from evolutionary psychologists and just-so stories about gender differences (if the story is about biology) or irrelevant references to forty-year-old science fiction stories (if the story is about anything else).

In the third paragraph I explain why this new development is important, what it would mean if in fact proven true (unfortunately, my explanation makes it clear that flying cars and free energy are still very far off) and who the researchers involved are. Again, my explanation is much better than the original article's, and has the added benefit of spelling everyone's name right. Depending on my temperament, I either very gently correct the linked article, or denounce it as worthless garbage emblematic of the ongoing collapse of journalism.

(Here, I digress for an anecdote about how I once used my knowledge of this topic to make friends with a gang of bikers in Missouri. The story is entertaining and reflects well on me as someone who does not allow their mighty brain to separate them from the common people.)

I wrap things up in the fifth paragraph by describing my eagerness to discuss this news with my colleagues in the morning. I also apologize for any possible errors or infelicities in the comment, and indirectly blame them on coffee (either too much, or not enough). Many people favorite this comment and it eventually gets sidebarred. Several commenters below thank me and one makes a joke in which certain descriptions employed in my explanation are applied to a well-known public figure or movie.
posted by No-sword at 10:11 AM on September 27, 2010 [50 favorites]


Needs more: "A growing number..." and "Increasingly..."

Also needs this:

This is the paragraph in which I speculate randomly on the study's impact on some hot-button policy issue of the day that has only the flimsiest tangential connection to the research itself. "This is yet more evidence," some right-wing strategist will argue, "that there is waning popular support for progressive issues and increasing hostility toward the very idea of the public sector as a common good." I will not quote a progressive analyst, because in my media outlet's working definition of balance, scientific research is inherently left-leaning.

And this:

If the research is related to climate change, hydrocarbon geology or ecology in general, this is the paragraph in which I assert that certain key facts underpinning the research are highly contested without also noting that this assertion has no scientific basis. I follow this with a long, dismissive quote from a spokesperson for a resource-extraction industry's fake public interest group, which I misidentify as a "think tank."
posted by gompa at 10:12 AM on September 27, 2010 [4 favorites]


It would be remiss to not recall this moment in metafilter history.
posted by stet at 10:15 AM on September 27, 2010 [2 favorites]


I am Jack's sarcastic reference to previous shenanigans.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:16 AM on September 27, 2010


I am, apparently, also Jack's simultaneous double comment.
posted by kaibutsu at 10:17 AM on September 27, 2010 [2 favorites]


Plus 10,000 points for the rickroll.
posted by fontophilic at 10:17 AM on September 27, 2010


Request for sidebarring of previous comment, even though I did not read it all the way through.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:29 AM on September 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think science journalism is just fine, thank you.
posted by Mister_A at 11:13 AM on September 27, 2010


I follow the lovely Ben Goldacre on twitter. Which is this article everyday but with citations.
posted by munchingzombie at 11:18 AM on September 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


When I saw this was a Guardian article, my first thought was that it was by Goldacre (he writes a weekly column for them)
posted by Infinite Jest at 11:43 AM on September 27, 2010


Goldacre? Wiseacre, more likely.
posted by spock at 11:50 AM on September 27, 2010


This is a comment that seems to be well-intentioned but out of context, and doesn't make any sense to you at all until you realize that I posted it in the wrong thread.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:53 AM on September 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


(This is a comment noting that the above comment was posted in the wrong threed.)
posted by caution live frogs at 11:54 AM on September 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


(This is a comment correcting a misspelled word in my last comment. Pray I do not comment further.)
posted by caution live frogs at 11:56 AM on September 27, 2010


The not-linking-to-the-paper thing is egregarious

Egregarious (adj): glaringly or flagrantly sociable.

That's actually a word I'd use. Thanks.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 11:57 AM on September 27, 2010 [3 favorites]


This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like "the scientists say" to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist.

Those aren't weasel words. An example of using weasel words would be to say "some say" without saying who those people are.
posted by ekroh at 12:04 PM on September 27, 2010


Excellent. Now I can write science articles.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 12:05 PM on September 27, 2010


This is a comment that attempts to make a tenuous connection to an unrelated political issue because that is what I really want to talk about.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:34 PM on September 27, 2010


I don't think this guy knows what search engine optimization means.

It means "wankers".
posted by Artw at 12:50 PM on September 27, 2010 [2 favorites]


Metafilter: the hope that something amusing or with incite/insight has been posted
posted by John Cohen at 1:23 PM on September 27, 2010


I am the very model of a modern science article
I was expecting a link to a youtube video as well. Thanks for putting that song in my head btw.
posted by variella at 2:27 PM on September 27, 2010


I was expecting a link to a youtube video as well.

The link to "Unrelated story from 2007 matched by keyword analysis" from the article is a YouTube video.
posted by grouse at 2:37 PM on September 27, 2010


NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
posted by Evilspork at 3:26 PM on September 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


This is the comment where Obi-Wan points out that this joke never gets old. He then goes on to snarkily add that that's a good thing since it was in Douglas Hofstadter's book 25 years ago.
posted by ob1quixote at 3:54 PM on September 27, 2010


This was an appropriate use of Rick Rolling.
posted by vidur at 4:58 PM on September 27, 2010


In this paragraph, I will obliquely but deliberately imply that correlation implies causation, even though I damn well know better.
posted by eugenen at 5:02 PM on September 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


This paragraph contained useful information or context, but was removed by the sub-editor to keep the article within an arbitrary word limit in case the internet runs out of space.

Yeah, I loved that too. Just yesterday I was explaining stuff like this to a young friend who just got a job as a student journalist at a college newspaper. I tried to explain about "pyramid style" and how articles have to fit the column-inches available, and they'll lop off the ending if it's too long, so the least important facts go at the end. Her immediate question was, "how many words in a column inch?"

I think I'll send her this article. Maybe not. It would probably baffle her. I had to explain to her what a lede was.
posted by charlie don't surf at 5:08 PM on September 27, 2010


Even though this has been done before I feel like there's nothing wrong with doing it again, because NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

Also I totally rickrolled myself because it had been a while.
posted by grapesaresour at 11:48 PM on September 27, 2010


[This is me favouriting random comments in hopes that it will increase my popularity on the site and, therefore, increase my future favourites.]
posted by 1000monkeys at 7:50 PM on September 29, 2010 [1 favorite]


Late evening, weeks after-the-fact sentimental personal reminiscence about something that stirred my memory in a comment upthread. This includes either a famous person I met, one or both of my children, a step-child who might or might not still speak to me, and of course a loving reference to my wife.

I close with a favorite song lyric.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:23 PM on October 13, 2010


A stray comment from someone who noticed something happen in a stale thread in their Recent Activity, and felt obliged to point out that your favorite band sucks.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:29 AM on October 14, 2010


« Older "It's time to remember that other people live...   |   Project 10^100 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments