Would it have been better to post them all individually? I considered that, but I wouldn’t really have had very much insightful to comment that wouldn’t already have been obvious from the articles themselves.
Would it have been better to post them all individually?
I think the correct answer is for you to post them as you did, and then be somewhat downvoted for it. “vote down” (for a post) doesn’t mean “You’re a bad person—I punish you!”, it means “I think this is amongst the worst articles on this site”. If we have excellent articles, you shouldn’t feel too bad about a bunch of links having that distinction.
Let’s err on the side of posting too many links to interesting looking peer reviewed research for now; we can start demanding stricter standards if it turns out to be a problem.
Would it have been better to post them all individually? I considered that, but I wouldn’t really have had very much insightful to comment that wouldn’t already have been obvious from the articles themselves.
I think the correct answer is for you to post them as you did, and then be somewhat downvoted for it. “vote down” (for a post) doesn’t mean “You’re a bad person—I punish you!”, it means “I think this is amongst the worst articles on this site”. If we have excellent articles, you shouldn’t feel too bad about a bunch of links having that distinction.
Let’s err on the side of posting too many links to interesting looking peer reviewed research for now; we can start demanding stricter standards if it turns out to be a problem.
I’m undecided on post links/don’t post links. I’m firmly decided that you shouldn’t post links to things you haven’t read.