Because I don’t remember or care what it stands for, because it’s probably written on the top or bottom of every single academic journal article you’ve read that was published in the past decade or so.
For example, the article on my nightstand is 10.1126/science.aba8425
They didn’t even bother printing the traditional name/vol/issue/page citation. I don’t remember when that started.
Thanks, but you see–it’s not about what DOI actually means. I don’t care. The point was that it’s poor form to post things like foreign words or rarely-known acronyms, initialisms, etc. It’s lazy and it’s lame.
Have you followed the thread since we moved to Discourse? That’s in the link. I haven’t seen more than a formatted link there in ages. And that’s perfect.
That’s interesting, but despite having read dozens, maybe hundreds, of academic papers this year, i didn’t know that, and also wondered what “DOI” meant. A parenthetical explaining it would have been nice.
Personally, I am much more often irritated by random acronyms on this site than by raw links. A hard rule would be awkward, as there are a few acronyms that everyone probably really does know. (Maybe POTUS or MIL?) And sometimes you don’t really need to know what the acronym means to follow the author’s point. But i would love to have guidance discouraging the use of acronyms.
I’m not sure I have ever used an acronym or initialism when I didn’t understand what it stood for. Not even NASCAR or SNAFU or NAFTA or NOAA.*
*Examples of acronyms that many people know but not that many could tell you what they stand for.
I have. I do miss the old red giant font link, but for that thread, just a link is, as you say, perfect. But that particular thread’s a longstanding tradition and a special case - like I said, just the new post number does count as a form of comment. I’d be less happy if it was just the text “latest update” or something, I’d say.
I mean, I’ve literally posted several of those links, and the name and number of the strip is part of what discourse can do automatically, similar to the one box.
I, too, miss the large colored links, but this is fine.
I agree, I wasn’t complaining.
I’m never the one to post them, so I had no idea how they work
Honestly, at work i do it all the time. I work in acronym hell. And i can’t count how often a new employee has asked me, “what does that acronym stand for”, and I’ve answered something like, “i don’t remember, but that’s what we call the system that does XYZ.” I suppose that’s similar to saying, “NASCAR, which is an auto race, but i don’t remember what the letters mean.”
It sounds like that’s a special community, and everybody who routinely visits there gets it.
As the OP, I’m fascinated by the level of controversy and even rancor that my suggestion has aroused. But that’s the Dope for ya. And one of the things that makes it a fun, interesting, and Dope-y place to hang out. Carry on.
I actually should have said “I have never written…” instead of “I have never used an acronym or initialism when I didn’t understand what it stood for.”
Because I think I’ve probably said an acronym before in passing I didn’t know–FARC comes to mind–or when I didn’t even know it was an acronym (maybe I thought it was a name or something). But if I’m writing or typing it out I am aware of the meaning (or I look it up). I think I’m just geeky that way.
A super-neato fun example–now I’m going to look up FARC (my ego impels me to remind y’all that I always knew what it is, I just didn’t know the actual Spanish F-A-R-C words).
WELL??? Share! What does FARC stand for?
Shocking it may seem but I think it’s been decades since I read an academic journal article. I doubt I’m the only one.
That’s your/their choice and loss; see above about not everyone being qualified or capable of participating. The folks who read and cite nothing but blogs and news articles won’t have DOIs to cite or follow, so I don’t care if they understand the post. But now maybe someone who does read and cite academic journals will think about a more permanent way of referencing them. It’s not as if spelling out Digital Object Identifier (had I remembered the words at the time) would have been any more illuminating the the first group. And I didn’t have time to write more than I did before my afternoon meetings.
The level of entitlement to others’ time expressed in this thread hilarious. I’m just imagining someone bringing the McDonaldland question to a librarian, who helps dig up some books that might help, only to have the visitor respond indignantly that they shouldn’t have to read them to find out. At least in that case the librarian is getting paid, albeit also probably eyeing the calendar with dreams of retirement.
That naked link is relevant, informative and thus a positive contribution. Even if it doesn’t perfectly answer the question – sometimes I’m so ignorant about a topic that the question I ask isn’t really the right question. Are there better responses than the naked link? You bet. But it’s better than no response.
What I’m seeing in your post is a link in the form of a single line of text. This is not what I posted: thanks to Discourse’s Onebox feature, my link showed up in a preview box that made it clear that what I was linking to was a Straight Dope column. Did it not show up that way for some people (i.e. you)?
If I had added my own explanation to the link I posted, I would have said something like “Cecil has written about the McDonaldland characters” or “Here’s an old Straight Dope column that’s at least somewhat relevant.” But I thought that that would have been just stating the obvious.
It’s clear you haven’t a clue what people are talking about here. Maybe the “others” haven’t made it clear. You’re the one who is supporting entitlement and wasting others’ time.
I’m Joe Poster and I see a discussion and want to make a point and I remember a web page that includes my point of view. So I drop a link and move on.
Now there’s a confusing link that people will either ignore or have to click on, read through, and try to analyze to figure out what I meant. I’m wasting their time, and for that matter wasting my own. I might even derail the thread as people try to figure it out. It’s almost trolling, and it could easily be done as a form of trolling if done deliberately to disrupt the conversation.
Your metaphor is only relevant if the librarian walked up to people in the library who were studying, dropped a handful of books in the middle of them, and walked away without explanation. In which case you’d call that librarian an asshole.
No it’s not. It’s often irritating and worse than no response. It’s often less than helpful. As I said, situationally it can be fine to just leave a link but far too often it’s not.
WHOA!
Suggest you move over to the Mensa board where you will find more qualified and capable people than here among mere morsels mortals. God speed.
If the purpose is to reach as many people as possible, in what way can reaching one person when it is very easy to reach more be considered a “success”?