When writing reports it is important to be clear and concise in the methods section in order to facilitate replication. Many of the differences listed above could have been avoided with better descriptions. For instance when it comes to labeling the images, the font size looked to be much larger in the replicate. This may due to improper font size, or it may be because the images themselves are a different size, making the fonts seem different. The angle of the arrow could have been controlled by having an easier to draw arrow. That is to say, one not at an angle, or at an easy to determine angle. Additionally arrow keys could have been used to provide exact inputs to move the arrow from an easy to determine position to its final position. The line thickness differed on the arrow, though this was in the methods and was not followed. Specifying that the arrow head used was the “5th one down” would have avoided the difference in arrowheads used to point to the web location. Unfortunately there does not seem to be much that can be done about the difference in map image, with the source used. The best that can be done is listing exactly everything visible in the image with the addition of dimensions of the image. Regardless this still leaves room for error.
When taking the photograph, the time of day and weather should have been accounted for in order to replicate the original image well. Since the lightpost and surrounding area was wet in the replicate we can assume it was raining. Also since the light was not turned on, this photograph was likely not taken at the same time. The addition of light shining down on top of the spiderweb would have likely produced a better contrast, allowing the spiderweb to be more visible in the photograph as well, as is true in the original.
Framing and instructions on framing could have been much better. In retrospect the original image of the surrounding area (Fig. 1:B) should have been directly centered around the lightpost, as is true in the replicate. The slight angle at which the original photograph was taken is difficult to describe and provides too much room for error. To go along with this, a specific distance from the lightpost to stand at and take a picture should have been specified.
Object used to provide scale was wrong. This may be due to a ruler just being unavailable at the time. Regardless however, it should have been mentioned that the ruler was to be held with the inches side closest to the lightpost. This point was not specified in the original methods.
Despite these differences, both the original and replicate images are very similar. This project has not only demonstrated the importance of a clearly written methods section but being mindful of how an experiment is performed. Keeping things reasonably simple, at least within the confines of the subject, will likely produce better results and enable easier replicability.
Recent comments