I want to say that I feel with you. The topic is important, you put a lot of work into it, and yet the reactions are discouraging.
The problem is that you chose a sensitive topic. Which means that the costs are higher and the rewards are lower. Similar to “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, but the psychological / sociological variant of the proverb would be “controversial claims require unrealistically perfect evidence”. It’s not that you wrote a bad article; you just chose a strategically wrong topic to write about.
I consider the article very good and very useful. But putting in into “Main” would signal higher group acceptance than it really has. More precisely, it would signal that the group has a high confidence in its correctness, which in fact it does not. (Note: I am not saying that the articles is incorrect. Only that the group does not overwhelmingly believe in its correctness.)
I want to say that I feel with you. The topic is important, you put a lot of work into it, and yet the reactions are discouraging.
The problem is that you chose a sensitive topic. Which means that the costs are higher and the rewards are lower. Similar to “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, but the psychological / sociological variant of the proverb would be “controversial claims require unrealistically perfect evidence”. It’s not that you wrote a bad article; you just chose a strategically wrong topic to write about.
I consider the article very good and very useful. But putting in into “Main” would signal higher group acceptance than it really has. More precisely, it would signal that the group has a high confidence in its correctness, which in fact it does not. (Note: I am not saying that the articles is incorrect. Only that the group does not overwhelmingly believe in its correctness.)