text media: getting feedback on clarity, interestingness, etc

[gusl]

I wish it were easier for me to publish a paper in a medium that invited readers to let me know whenever they read a statement that they have trouble with, e.g. by leaving a flag like:

* "I don't see how this follows!"
* "what does this mean?"

...without fear of seeming lazy or stupid.

or by:
* commenting in-line

Current media (PDF, PS, DOC, etc. and *even* wikis) make the above process hard.

How often do you email the author of a paper about small points, unclear details, typos? Why not more often?

A nice automatic way to do this would be to track the readers' eye-movements and facial expressions, possibly through a webcam. That way, authors could also assess which parts readers find interesting, surprising, and how much they agree. It can be frustrating for me when I write a blog entry about an important point, and people only make comments on the incidental details. This is a sign that they either didn't understand the main point, or that they don't find it interesting. I would like to know which of the above is the case.

Comments

[serapio.livejournal.com]

When you say "incidental details", what exactly do you mean?

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

details that are not central to the idea, e.g. examples that are only interesting (for me) as illustrations of my point.

[serapio.livejournal.com]

sorry, that comment should have had [sarcasm] tags around it.

[serapio.livejournal.com]

I do think this a good idea. One of the things that disturbs me about the way wikis and blogs handle comments is that either while reading the text you are unaware of comments on the part you're reading, or (in some wikis) your reading of the text is interrupted by the inserted comments. It might be nice to have comments function more like MediaWiki's footnotes, or better, like the margin notes in Word/OOWriter documents. Or are you imagining something more like a slashdot or digg style rating system going sentence-by-sentence?

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I like with the footnotes/marginnotes idea.

Aren't slashdot comments just like LiveJournal?

[serapio.livejournal.com]

I mean the rating system the moderators use, not the comments. It would just be a way to flag difficult, interesting, stupid, etc text.

[selfishgene.livejournal.com]

Why are you afraid of seeming lazy?

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I am not. The reader shouldn't be afraid of seeming lazy (for not trying harder, rereading several times, etc).

[selfishgene.livejournal.com]

I usually respond only if I disagree with something, or wish to expand on a point. Occasionally I will register approval, if I'm particularly impressed/excited by a posting. Failing to respond to the major point does not imply lack of comprehension or interest. I may feel you already said everything that needed saying.
I try to avoid commenting simply to say 'Me too' or 'LOL'. These are legitimate feedback for the poster, but they get annoying very fast. Vocal approval, repetition and stating the obvious; are common in face-to-face conversations. However, they look lame in textual form.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Yes. It would be nice to have better media for showing agreement.

It is well known that if you want lots of comments, you should write a short and controversial post.

[selfishgene.livejournal.com]

Maybe LJ could create a mini-feedback-poll on each posting. You could select from a range of replies. E.g. Excellent, good, boring, funny, LOL etc. The total could be displayed below the posting. It would be less irritating than comments with 'LOL' and 'good post'. The poster would have the option to switch on this feature.