Restuta · December 16, 2015 00:00
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
 Hi everyone, I wanted to highlight couple of moments regarding past event. First of all let me explain that my intent is not to blame organizers (while it may appear like it is), I am thankful for their initiative. I fully support popularization of science and respect what they are doing. 

 But.

 I want to point out that event description is somewhat "advetisery" (yes it's not even a word) meaning it contains several inaccuracies, making you think that it's a sensation while it is not. E.g. here is debunking of the event description I made after attending the event:

 http://content.screencast.com/users/Restuta/folders/Jing/media/8dabb964-0a0c-4411-a1ba-08015a18a7b2/00000668.png


 While I understand that sound headlines, hidden assumptions and other marketing tricks attract more people, at the same time they put off other category of people who are a little deeper into the topic. 

 On the other hand pure scientific description is too boring and nobody would come. So what could be done? Here is what I offer:

 Best of two words can be achieved, sound marketing and scientific correctness. I think the first step could be to ask scientists that are invited to review the description. So scientific correctness go first, it's a bare minimum and how to make it appeal to the masses goes second. Not the other way around.

 E.g. TED somehow manages to gather people using honest event descriptions. Science is already exciting without need to use tricks, sometimes it's just hard to explain why it's exciting.
	Hi everyone, I wanted to highlight couple of moments regarding past event. First of all let me explain that my intent is not to blame organizers (while it may appear like it is), I am thankful for their initiative. I fully support popularization of science and respect what they are doing.

	But.

	I want to point out that event description is somewhat "advetisery" (yes it's not even a word) meaning it contains several inaccuracies, making you think that it's a sensation while it is not. E.g. here is debunking of the event description I made after attending the event:

	http://content.screencast.com/users/Restuta/folders/Jing/media/8dabb964-0a0c-4411-a1ba-08015a18a7b2/00000668.png


	While I understand that sound headlines, hidden assumptions and other marketing tricks attract more people, at the same time they put off other category of people who are a little deeper into the topic.

	On the other hand pure scientific description is too boring and nobody would come. So what could be done? Here is what I offer:

	Best of two words can be achieved, sound marketing and scientific correctness. I think the first step could be to ask scientists that are invited to review the description. So scientific correctness go first, it's a bare minimum and how to make it appeal to the masses goes second. Not the other way around.

	E.g. TED somehow manages to gather people using honest event descriptions. Science is already exciting without need to use tricks, sometimes it's just hard to explain why it's exciting.
No results found