SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Hundreds of Mysterious Stone 'Gates' Found in Saudi Arabia's Desert
Google Earth has unlocked the gates to ancient mysteries around the world.
For years, amateur and professional archaeologists have used the search engine's satellite imagery to discover mysterious earthworks in Kazakhstan, Roman ruins, a forgotten fortress in Afghanistan and more. In the past decade, Google Earth also has helped identify thousands of burial sites and other "works of the old men," as they're called, scattered across Saudi Arabia.
Now, archaeologists have uncovered nearly 400 previously undocumented stone structures they call "gates" in the Arabian desert that they believe may have been built by nomadic tribes thousands of years ago.
"We tend to think of Saudi Arabia as desert, but in practice there's a huge archaeological treasure trove out there and it needs to be identified and mapped," said David Kennedy, an archaeologist at the University of Western Australia and author of a paper set to appear in the November issue of the journal Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy.
"You can't see them very well from the ground level, but once you get up a few hundred feet, or with a satellite even higher, they stand out beautifully."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:32AM
There's ample opportunity to do that in the headline, or by writing a remark of one's own.
While there's nothing wrong with emulating good practices from Slashdot, you seem to be telling us that Slashdot stopped doing that. If they stopped, maybe they realized it's not a good practice. If you admire them and want to emulate them, let the fact that they stopped be a reason for you to stop.
It is indeed, and when copying and pasting several paragraphs of others' work, we ought to clearly indicate whose work it is. And when we quote something but make changes to it beyond correcting minor typos, we ought to clearly indicate what those changes are.
That's a false assumption, because I do submit stories. So I know how much effort it takes to clearly identify the article. I always make it clear, and I don't find it a hardship at all.
When you tack a link to the source article onto arbitrary words within a quote, you are altering it.
Are you accustomed to getting praise for your submissions? Mine have received very little, and I see few comments praising anyone's.
I wish that it would attain the standard to which high school students are held. You're the most prolific submitter (at least, going by the stories that have been accepted) and I am indeed constantly disappointed by your misleading quoting style.
Because you can't be bothered to type "From the BBC" or "I saw this on the New York Times website", "source", "src" or the like? Then please, just put in a bare link, or use one of the bots to submit it, either of which takes less effort that what you've been doing. You could attribute your quotations clearly without any additional effort on your part.
The way you're doing these submissions requires more effort from the editors, should they wish to change it to a normal style of quoting. If the editors don't bother to do so, your style causes needless confusion to the readers. I'm not the first to point this out to you. I find it annoying, akin to the commenters who always post in monospace or who bring up Nazism or Donald Trump in unrelated discussions. Annoyed readers have asked them to stop, but they persist. I'm pleased by the responses of edIII and takyon.