Michel Jullian wrote: >Jed wrote: > >> There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all. > >You are hereby sentenced to add "in the form of his choice", because readers >don't give a damn about the format in which they can access a previously >unavailable resource . . .
That is incorrect. Readers care a lot about format, and even more about presentation quality. I know a lot more about this subject than you do. I have distributed 800,000 previously unavailable papers about cold fusion, so I know what readers want. Messy, low-quality papers at LENR-CANR attract very few readers, whereas good papers are downloaded thousands of times a year. If you upload fax-machine quality low-res scanned images of a paper, with sideways, blacked-out overexposed figures and spelling mistakes, you will be lucky if 5 people a week read it. Convert that same paper to a proper format and if the content is any good, hundreds of people will download it every week. I enumerated the reasons why I think this standard is best. If you see a technical problem on that list of reasons, let's hear it. Otherwise, don't tell me how to do my job. I have been publishing technical information for decades, and I do not take kindly to amateur kvetching. >, and the ball will be in Mitchell's court, he might even decide to provide >them in the format you like most if he is not forced to. The ball is already in his court. He can upload his papers to his own web site anytime he wants, in any format he likes. No one is forcing him to provide anything to me, in any format. - Jed
