It seems to me that this standard would result in you writing hundreds of similar reviews with the same conclusion. Why did you choose this one? If you write more articles like this, please state the conclusion at the beginning so I can avoid reading it. I can filter other posts by their titles.
I’m not sure there are hundreds of such articles, but since you asked, I was thinking of doing the other 3 papers in this special JET issue (note the tag); then, if people seemed to find it valuable or it seemed to be leading to good discussions, I might then sporadically do particularly good or interesting ones in the previous issues of JET. Is this a problem?
While I’m asking your permission, perhaps you could tell me in advance what you would think of a chapter by chapter read of Good and Real, or reading through the SL4 archive to produce ‘greatest hits’ pages of links to and excerpts from the best/most original SL4 emails. (After all, I wouldn’t want to annoy you.)
“Particularly good or interesting” articles sound like great ones to write about. That’s the opposite of “nothing of interest to us.” If you can identify “particularly good or interesting” articles, why write about the current ones? They won’t be current forever. If you conclude that a chapter of Good and Real is worthless, then I would like to know that at the start of the review. But surely the reason you chose Good and Real for this treatment is because you don’t expect that conclusion.
It seems to me that this standard would result in you writing hundreds of similar reviews with the same conclusion. Why did you choose this one? If you write more articles like this, please state the conclusion at the beginning so I can avoid reading it. I can filter other posts by their titles.
I’m not sure there are hundreds of such articles, but since you asked, I was thinking of doing the other 3 papers in this special JET issue (note the tag); then, if people seemed to find it valuable or it seemed to be leading to good discussions, I might then sporadically do particularly good or interesting ones in the previous issues of JET. Is this a problem?
While I’m asking your permission, perhaps you could tell me in advance what you would think of a chapter by chapter read of Good and Real, or reading through the SL4 archive to produce ‘greatest hits’ pages of links to and excerpts from the best/most original SL4 emails. (After all, I wouldn’t want to annoy you.)
“Particularly good or interesting” articles sound like great ones to write about. That’s the opposite of “nothing of interest to us.” If you can identify “particularly good or interesting” articles, why write about the current ones? They won’t be current forever. If you conclude that a chapter of Good and Real is worthless, then I would like to know that at the start of the review. But surely the reason you chose Good and Real for this treatment is because you don’t expect that conclusion.