DJ Cravens <djcrav...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I admit I just skimmed it, but it seems only to address WHO is accessing > the materials, not which papers/data/presentations are being accessed. > Well, who and how many. I have published other descriptions of which kinds of papers are accessed. > How does it tell me that this or that kind of papers or presentations are > better at "acceptance" by your readers? > This does not, but elsewhere I have said that experimental papers are more popular than theory. Especially well written papers by people such as Fleischmann and Pons, McKubre, Storms or Miles. Also, general guides to the field are popular, such as Hagelstein, and Storms. People want to know where to start. > Can you share what "popular" papers are being accessed? Is there a > list somewhere? I missed it. What are their characteristics? > The characteristics are not surprising. Well written papers by leading authors are most popular. As I said, experiments trump theory. The public is smart and knows what's good and what isn't. (As I librarian, I take pains to avoid saying which papers I think are bad. I don't want to be seen as taking sides in disputes.) Authors and editors in the field have asked me not to share too many specifics, to protect privacy. Just as a scientist is obligated to share information, a librarian is obligated to keep it confidential. Before I published the ICCF17 paper, I circulated it to Storms, Nagel, Biberian and others. They agreed it does not reveal anything that a person knowledgeable about the Internet would not already know. Some of the papers are popular because I list them on the main page at LENR-CANR.org. However, I can tell when people click on those links, so I can discount my own influence. Most of the time people download papers without going through my screens. I do not have much influence on readers. This is deliberate; I try not to influence them. I am the opposite of Steve Krivit. > Do they have the videos, and such that you keep claiming are required > for acceptance? > I never said it is required for acceptance. The popular papers at LENR-CANR.org, such as ones by Miles, have no videos associated with them. I do think that a video would be a naturally good way to show a demonstration. I do not know much about the effect of videos. I have not been following them. They do not have hyperlinks to papers, so I cannot tally up how often people watch a video and then read a paper. The videos on YouTube do have individual tallies, showing how many times they have been downloaded, and likes and dislikes. So you can tell which ones are influential. I could add the number of downloads for each paper to the LENR-CANR.org library indexes, but I do not think it is a good idea. > If it turns out that it is just specific org's then it may mean that > there is no use for individuals, like me or Mitch, to try to play that > game. > Not sure what this means. A broad range people from many organizations read papers at LENR-CANR.org, as I showed in Table II. That does not mean they read the obscure or poorly written papers. There is a large difference between the popular papers and unpopular ones, as shown in Fig. 2. I would not call this "playing a game." As I said, it is a primary obligation of a scientist to publish, and share information. Otherwise you resemble a medical doctor who never sees a patient or cures a disease. That would be a doctor in name only. > It would support my case that, for me, I should try something different > that papers, presentations and demos at ICCF meetings. > You have not actually "tried" demos at ICCF meetings. You have presented them, but then you failed to make use of them, by publishing them. You have no idea whether they might be effective or not. The demo itself is only the starting point. - Jed
