I debated about presentation when I started posting stuff like this in the past. I don't disagree with the input here as I see it having sense to present information in a classy way. But I still opted to just do things this way on the basis where I'm sharing stuff in chill mode and not trying to impress a medical community which requires an intensive amount of detail. Going that route removes my motivation to even post.
I think about the general reader experience. If a random stranger, none medically inclined came upon my post, information should be presented in a way that it's easy to grasp intuitively without a medical background and if there are any jargons or concepts present, these can be easily Googled up.
It's the same pet peeve I have with thesis type of writing, how so something so interesting can bore me when I have to be fed with terms that can be simplified and this just prevents people from appreciating the information and science behind. But this is just my preference.
Gotcha. You don't have to add "an intensive amount of detail", feed people with complicated terms or write a thesis to bore other people and yourself. Adding two or three links, though won't hurt anyone and it could actually help you.
Yeah, I'm a bit hesitant to link people to https://tumourclassification.iarc.who.int/welcome/ where I got the info and be greeted with a paywall to know. There is also - Blaustein. But that's where I got my sources from. The point is being considerate with not putting links that really give the reader answers they want if they have to go through different hoops to get it.
If there is a specific part on the post one wants to verify, I can backread it and give the answer and that gives me an idea that people actually read the post.
Hehe, so you want to be "considerate" of the reader. Thinking too much about how to evade the little suggestion can lead you to use ad hoc arguments ;)
I am not evading the suggestion. I get the suggestion. I already told you why I dont want follow the suggestion. If there is a piece of information that isn't clear, let me know so that I can double back on that detail and expound it so that I know you actually read it and interested. This is the voice I want my post to have.
I peeked into your post with that comment because I was trying to be nice and politically correct by hinting to you that adding some sources in your post might help the work of some curators and help you get support.
I understand your self-determination and self-confidence to do the post the way you want.
The fact that you used the word trying and politically correct implies a contrast to what you were sincerely thinking.
It's a fair point and I took your initial points of contact as constructive criticism. The parts where it started to get annoying was drilling on the subject further. I get the part where you are pointing me to the right direction to get those curation incentives for sharing, I really do. But it became frustrating to explain that you assumed I didn't and disregarded why I insist on doing things my way despite being frank why I don't subscribe to the curation norms.
I'm not invested in the conversation as it's all a matter of preference how one frames their post and curator bias if they think the post is worthy of support. But I do appreciate you taking the time to visit. My confidence comes from doing the actual work and living the profession that is privileged to share this information.
I don't see how that conclusion follows those premises. Even if I was thinking something different, the set of my possible thoughts is too broad and could mean many things.
This is my point (I hope I can clarify it finally). Often, when you are too direct or honest, some people get offended. Trying to be nicer by rephrasing what you say is called "euphemism", which in turn means "trying to be politically correct". It is "trying" because there is no guarantee that it will work in some cases and people will still be offended by the expression used. For example:
"You made a tactically unsound move" is code for "you blundered" (typical in chess).
"Person of short stature" is code for "dwarf".
"Next time consider adding some sources so one can learn more about all this :)" was my failed euphemistic attempt to say "Next time add sources because I shouldn't cure/vote you if you don't meet some criteria".
Then you started a series of lengthy responses that included several points beyond "adding two or three links". It suggested to me that you were a bit defensive, but my intent was not to criticize or offend. I understand that you didn't get it the euphemism. Perhaps more contextual knowledge was needed.
Ok, I know what your position is and I hope I have clarified the reasons after my visit and comments. We are done :)