Okay, so yeah, yeah, I’m going to blabber on about SciRate.com again. So if your one of those grumps who think that Digg is what you do in the dirt and MySpace refers to your own personsal space, you can stop reading now.
For those of you who haven’t checked out SciRate.com recently, you might not know that there is now a comment feature where you can comment on each paper posted. While there have only been a few comments so far, I think most readers of this blog (all three of you!) would be interested in each of these comments. So here is a digest of some recent comments:
User tobiasosborne writes a comment about 0705.0556, “Random Unitaries Give Quantum Expanders” by M. B. Hastings giving us a good expanded synopsis of the signfigance of this paper.
User Steven reads 0706.1966 so that we don’t have to.
User matt.hastings points us to 0706.3612, “Chiral entanglement in triangular lattice models” by D. I. Tsomokos, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, and J. K. Pachos, which describes a model which just might be a chiral spin liquid.
User dabacon (now who could that be?) comments on the title of 0707.0021, “Fault Tolerant Adiabatic Quantum Computation” by Daniel A. Lidar, which he finds reason to object to. Update: And a conversation ensues.
Pretty cool, eh? Well I think it is cool, but then again, I think science benefits from open discussion (and I wrote the damn website myself, heh.)
Personally, I would prefer the Amazon model, where one can give a 1 to 5 rating, and anyone giving a rating is forced to leave a message explaining his or her reasons.
If there are truly only three people that read this blog, like you said, I think I need to see a psychiatrist…
I have visited your site 554-times
I hereby cast my vote for the Amazon model of rating the utility of reviews.