This post, which concentrated on people’s commentary about a field of inquiry, could have been improved by including some summary of the field being commented on.
From past experience, I’m pretty sure that would have led to people ignoring the intent of the post, and instead having flamewars over the content of the summary.
I see what you mean, but I think that would have distracted from the point of the post, which had nothing to do with the fields being used as examples.
Possibly, yes; but reading a discussion about a topic I don’t know anything about is hard, so I’m less likely to get anything out of it, despite the fact that it is there in what you wrote. I’m claiming that the additional “distracting” material would actually serve as a hook to get the reader interested in putting effort into understanding the point of the post.
Yeah, I can see that. In this particular case it wouldn’t have been true for me, but in others it might have been, and I believe that it is for you here.
This post, which concentrated on people’s commentary about a field of inquiry, could have been improved by including some summary of the field being commented on.
From past experience, I’m pretty sure that would have led to people ignoring the intent of the post, and instead having flamewars over the content of the summary.
I see what you mean, but I think that would have distracted from the point of the post, which had nothing to do with the fields being used as examples.
Possibly, yes; but reading a discussion about a topic I don’t know anything about is hard, so I’m less likely to get anything out of it, despite the fact that it is there in what you wrote. I’m claiming that the additional “distracting” material would actually serve as a hook to get the reader interested in putting effort into understanding the point of the post.
Yeah, I can see that. In this particular case it wouldn’t have been true for me, but in others it might have been, and I believe that it is for you here.