[radarsat1]

Dedicated host name for a single algorithm, TED talk, high-production value video with professional animations, narrator talking excitedly, more kitschy examples of applications than description of the algorithm itself.

Yup, MIT.

[abedavis]

I am a grad student. If you consider how many hours I work, I probably make less than minimum wage.

I am also the first author of the paper described in these videos, which my colleagues and I published in the top academic journal in our field.

I also made all of the videos, did the voiceovers, and hand drew the animations (though I'm flattered you think they were professionally done). I wrote and presented the TED talk. I purchased the dedicated host name for a single algorithm (using money from my own grad student stipend no less) and created the webpage myself.

I am an academic first, and I take academic integrity very seriously. I also take education very seriously. I consider educating the public about research to be part of my job, and this is done best when people are excited about the research.

Also, this work IS exciting. If it weren't we wouldn't have spent so much time working on it and it wouldn't have been published in ACM TOG. But back to flashy videos and press...

Consider that in the past three days, nearly 100,000 people (and counting) sat through a video where I explain what vibration modes are. VIBRATION MODES. They may have been lured in by pokemon, but kids who remember that video won't have to ask their physics teachers "but why should I care about this? what is it useful for?" Hell, if it gets people excited I hope teachers show it to their students before they teach the topic. I'm not making money off of these videos, I'm just stoked this many people are getting excited about research. Our paper has 17 numbered equations in it - it's not exactly a page turner.

When scientists don't make an effort to communicate their work to the public, that responsibility falls on people outside of the academic community - people who often don't understand the work. When we make things harder for the press, we only encourage them to bastardize the work to make it more palatable to the general public. By taking an active role in how we present academic work to general audiences, we can better shape the message, manage expectations, and help prevent content from being sacrificed for click-bait.

Ok, I'm going to get off my soap box now. Cheers! -Abe Davis

[abedavis]

I should also mention that the people at MIT CSAIL news are very good. They put a lot more attention into fact checking and making sure things are accurate than your average reporter. They set a pretty good example.

To the advantage of being at MIT, they are very good about preparing a press release and contacting other news outlets to get exposure. But as a broader point, when it comes to reporting on science, I think the MIT/CSAIL set a good example.

[erdevs]

I think your work (and your promotion of that work!) is awesome! Please take heart in all the appreciation and encouragement in this thread (and elsewhere)!

[abedavis]

Thanks so much! I really appreciate that :) And, in fact, I'm not at all upset about the original comment - I totally get where the skepticism comes from. Polish and substance are too often uncorrelated when it comes to science in the media. I think it's important not to assume they are anti-correlated though, because then we start discouraging scientists from trying to reach people beyond the academic community.

[radarsat1]

Sorry buddy! It was intended as a bit of dry humor. Didn't mean to pick a nerve. :) You're doing good work.

[abedavis]

No worries. I totally understand (and invite) the skepticism. It's good to question this kind of press when you see it, and try to understand where the technology really is. I just think it's important not to assume that anything presented with polish has to be compromising on content.

[_pius]

Besides sounding bitter and petty, this comment is bizarre — the relevant papers are available right on the site (http://www.interactivedynamicvideo.com/publications.html).

We should encourage people to make their research accessible to a broader audience, not engage in catty sniping and whinging when they get recognized for their work.

[erdevs]

Ah, come on, it's pretty cool. :) And they do have a publications page: http://www.interactivedynamicvideo.com/publications.html

I'm all for science being promoted/marketed, even if it's in a(n endearingly) dorky way. And there are some fun use cases for this to boot (see the Pokemon GO / AR vid below).

[WhitneyLand]

Jazzing up science seems to have more upside than not, as long as the quality and substance are maintained.

[mynewtb]

I recently got access to some hailed MIT technology with its own shiny videos, professional photos, patent pending and slick copy. It turned out to be a barely working prototype built on standard technology.

To me misleading the public is not the worst about it. Pretending scientific accomplishments can deter and demotivate other, 'competing' scientists in the field.

[icebraining]

Which tech was it?

[virgil_disgr4ce]

Sarcastic whining, complaining about genuinely innovative research, missing the point, nitpicking, trying to make self seem more important by criticising everything.

Yup, Hacker News Commenter.

;)

[RivieraKid]

Well, it's the top comment, so it's apparently something that resonated with people. There's something quite grating about the way they try to make it... cool, I guess. Steals the focus from the content.

[Kinnard]

You know, I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that "the best" actually does always float to the top around here.

[radarsat1]

Can't edit the comment so I'll just put this here: didn't expect this to get upvoted to be honest ;) I was trying to be bitter and petty as a kind of dark humour, but for the record I actually think it's pretty cool that students at MIT have that kind of support behind them.

That said, it's always sort of amusing to see the MIT PR-machine at work, because it's so _obvious_ once you get familiar with how they work. At most universities the idea of hiring someone to make a professional animation with perfect sound-studio recorded narrative for a single project/paper would just... not happen. On the other hand I can see why they do it, because it works.. it really changes how people perceive the work, and the importance of it. On the other hand, yes, it can be a little frustrating to see something sort of publicized as completely game-changing as if the work came leaped forth from the vacuum of space and directly into the minds of MIT graduate students, when plenty of other people at other universities are doing related work. (How many citations does the video have, for example?) Not saying that's the case here, but I'll admit that it's sometimes been how I've initially reacted to things from MIT that were closer to my research domain. Kind of like, "hey that's pretty similar to what I'm doing, how come I don't have a dedicated web page and professional video and thousands of hits coming from the top of hacker news and reddit?" And then it hits me: "oh right, because I didn't make one.."

tldr; MIT has PR down to a science. They take publicity seriously, and it makes a huge difference for them. That is not necessarily a bad thing, although it does raise the bar for everyone else, which can be kind of annoying when you have papers and theses to write.

[MichaelGG]

This is ridiculous. The amount of time that went into this project is probably fairly large. In a more competitive world, making some short videos and a basic page seems quite obvious. If the people involved spent, I dunno, 8 weeks on the project, then spent another few days putting together some materials to explain their work, that seems totally obvious and helpful.

Why do you think professionals were hired? A basic microphone+blanket to damp echos, and a passing familiarity (perhaps a friend) with a video editor should be enough to put that together. (No offense to the team.) If you wanted to hire someone, I'm betting you could get it done for $50 on Fiverr. Another $10 for a domain, and a few bucks for hosting.

You're making it sound like this is some huge professional outfit with a coordinated marketing plan. It looks more like someone trying to show off their project that they spent a lot of time on.

[dgreensp]

As the primary author stated, MIT PR does not make these videos. I've seen plenty of dry, poorly-produced videos; what you're seeing reflects the dedication, talent, and charisma of the researcher more than anything else. Source: I was a grad student at MIT.