It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New [EX] limits don't allow us to cite scholarly abstracts

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
It seems like it only allows less than 2 paragraphs (and no room for the links)...


Availability of blueberry phenolics for microbial metabolism in the colon and the potential inflammatory implications
Abstract Link

Blueberries are a rich source of phenylpropanoid-derived phytochemicals, widely studied for their potential health benefits. Of particular interest for colonic health are the lower molecular weight phenolic acids and their derivatives, as these are the predominant phenolic compounds detected in the colon. Blueberries contained a wide variety of phenolic acids, the majority of which (3371.14 ± 422.30 mg/kg compared to 205.06 ± 45.34 mg/kg for the free phenolic acids) were attached to other plant cell-wall components and therefore, likely to become available in the colon. Cytokine-induced stimulation of the inflammatory pathways in colon cells was four-fold up-regulated in the presence of the free phenolic acid fraction. Incubation of the bound phenolic acids with human faecal slurries resulted in qualitative and quantitative differences in the phenolic compounds recovered. The metabolites obtained by incubation with faecal slurries from one volunteer significantly decreased (1.67 ± 0.69 ng/cm3) prostanoid production, whereas an increase (10.78 ± 5.54 ng/cm3) was obtained with faecal slurries from another volunteer. These results suggest that any potential protective effect of blueberry phenolics as anti-inflammatory agents in the colon is a likely result of microbial metabolism. Studies addressing a wide-range of well-characterised human volunteers will be required before such health claims can be fully established.


That's one abstract, or at least it was. You can hit quote to see how much text was axed.

That looks like one and a half paragraphs to me.

Having a predefined number of characters to set a size limit... based on 3 paragraphs... seems impossible to me. Who is to say what 3 paragraphs should only amount to?

15% or 3 paragraphs is subjective, per individual case. My works of recent are massive. But the paragraphs may or may not be. Some are long, some are short. So it makes sense that you'd have the 3 paragraph limit, but depending on which part of which piece was being cited, there's not telling how long paragraphs are going to be.

There could be three long paragraphs, each with 8 run on sentences, or some short ones. Even the long ones wouldn't account for 15% of the pieces I'm talking about.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Ok here goes the jumping thru hoops I was talking about:

Availability of blueberry phenolics for microbial metabolism in the colon and the potential inflammatory implications

Blueberries are a rich source of phenylpropanoid-derived phytochemicals, widely studied for their potential health benefits. Of particular interest for colonic health are the lower molecular weight phenolic acids and their derivatives, as these are the predominant phenolic compounds detected in the colon. Blueberries contained a wide variety of phenolic acids, the majority of which (3371.14 ± 422.30 mg/kg compared to 205.06 ± 45.34 mg/kg for the free phenolic acids) were attached to other plant cell-wall components and therefore, likely to become available in the colon. Cytokine-induced stimulation of the inflammatory pathways in colon cells was four-fold up-regulated in the presence of the free phenolic acid fraction. Incubation of the bound phenolic acids with human faecal slurries resulted in qualitative and quantitative differences in the phenolic compounds recovered. The metabolites obtained by incubation with faecal slurries from one volunteer significantly decreased (1.67 ± 0.69 ng/cm3) prostanoid production, whereas an increase (10.78 ± 5.54 ng/cm3) was obtained with faecal slurries from another volunteer. These results suggest that any potential protective effect of blueberry phenolics as anti-inflammatory agents in the colon is a likely result of microbial metabolism. Studies addressing a wide-range of well-characterised human volunteers will be required before such health claims can be fully established.

Abstract Link

Note I took the title out, and pushed the link outwards. More hassle, still didn't fit 60% of the abstract. Plus the link is outside of the box, while the box is where I almost always prefer to have the link and half the people out there are probably the same.

It'd just be a lot easier to email my findings to my mom, and be done with it. hint hint.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


More hassle, still didn't fit 60% of the abstract.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]


reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


If you had read my post above, never have we been able to copy/paste more than 15% of external material.

Copy/paste a snippet and post a link


There has always been a limit on quoting external sources.

Posting work written by others:


posted on January 2nd 2006
Going forward, if you post something that is not 100% your own writing or work you must use the EX TAG, post NO MORE THAN 15% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least), and GIVE A LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL. If the work you are posting is not on the internet, from a book for example, you MUST give a credit for that Book ( the title), its Author and Publisher.



[edit on August 15th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


I agree 100,000,00 percent. This new limit is ludicrous given they want better content, Now we will have a massive increase of one liners that I am already seeing.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Abstracts are only a summary of a paper. Papers are often 30+ pages, and just about every paper I've ever seen from multi-disciplines are almost always over 10 pages.

The abstract is the portion they provide free of charge, as too many papers costs some pretty bucks to view in full. Just because you might only see the abstract when you click on a link doesn't mean that's the entire paper (source). Since they do provide the abstract free of charge that alone ought to bend the rules on percentages, or at least set a precedent against any sort of arguments that the summary should be treated as a complete source.

And as I pointed out, character limits are severely flawed in enforcing either 15% or 3 paragraphs. Right now its set on 1.5 'average' paragraphs (with link and title outside of the box).


C'mon ATS. This is just silly. We're being treated like little kids.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Keep making excuses, now you have an auto editor witch removes what it wants. It sucks and if you want members to leave keep it up. I am done wasting my time to make a post and have ATS edit it Willy nilly when ever they want, how they choose.

With this new limit you cant get your point across so why the hell bother.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


No they have bandwidth issues, thanks to the useless media here that can be linked to the original source but they choose to have media over what we want to post. Its all about money.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
This topic has been answered.


If you have any questions regarding this or any other matter, feel free to U2U myself or any other Staff Member, or use the ATS Complaint/Suggestion Form located in the Member Center and get the full attention of the entire Staff.

Closed.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
if I'm reading your correctly, you are complaining about the pop up window that comes up when you try to copy and paste a link to a site. If that is the case, yeah, I feel your pain, annoying isn't it?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Well there's the popup telling us not to overpaste, and then actual size limit on how much we can paste. Not only annoying, but redundant. Thing is we can cheat and use the standard quote feature to get around it, but it doesn't look as nice. At best it seems someone wasted time coding in the dual measure.



NOTE:

Abstracts are one paragraph, yet we can't post them. Heere goes another example of one paragraph (watch for cutoff):


Non-ionizing radiation produced by nanosecond pulsed electric fields (nsPEFs) is an alternative to ionizing radiation for cancer treatment. NsPEFs are high power, low energy (non-thermal) pulses that, unlike plasma membrane electroporation, modulate intracellular structures and functions. To determine functions for p53 in nsPEF-induced apoptosis, HCT116p53+/+ and HCT116p53−/− colon carcinoma cells were exposed to multiple pulses of 60 kV/cm with either 60 ns or 300 ns durations and analyzed for apoptotic markers. Several apoptosis markers were observed including cell shrinkage and increased percentages of cells positive for cytochrome c, active caspases, fragmented DNA, and Bax, but not Bcl-2. Unlike nsPEF-induced apoptosis in Jurkat cells (Beebe et al. 2003a) active caspases were observed before increases in cytochrome c, which occurred in the presence and absence of Bax. Cell shrinkage occurred only in cells with increased levels of Bax or cytochrome c. NsPEFs induced apoptosis equally in HCT116p53+/+ and HCT116p53−/− cells. These results demonstrate that non-ionizing radiation produced by nsPEFs can act as a non-ligand agonist with therapeutic potential to induce apoptosis utilizing mitochondrial-independent mechanisms in HCT116 cells that lead to caspase activation and cell death in the presence or absence of p-53 and Bax.


www.springerlink.com...



I used the complaint bot, and this is what I said:

I've stated the case in a recent forum:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But allow me to sum up:
1. Abstracts from scholarly papers are one paragraph summaries of often vast papers.

Abstracts are the free to copy summary elements provided by the peer-review system.

Most abstracts are larger than the current limit on character quantity currently in place.

2: It's redundant to have a popup box telling us what we can't post, and actual limits at the same time. This treats every ATS member like children. So many of us have paid our dues to not be stymied by such staunch restrictions.

3: The idea of character count limits on paragraph guidelines is absurd. Paragraph sizes can range highly, and even large ones like abstracts can only represent far less than 15% of a source.

I gotta say, I'm trying to do the most exhaustive cancer fighting piece possible, and I'm already full aware that I'll have to spend several extra hours formatting it into bbcode for ATS. We can't even fit the article/paper titles, and links, into the citation boxes.

In all of my years on ATS, this is all the most absurd thing I've seen you guys do by a longshot.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join