You are here

discussion redo p2

Submitted by cdkelly on Mon, 10/15/2018 - 01:13

The background and scenery of part A and part B of the replicate figure had differences that resulted from the methods as well as differences that could not be controlled. The moisture and shadow position differences between the original and the replicate were due to the weather differences and the alloted time for replication. My methods stated the weather and time of day the photos were taken. In addition, the vehicle seen in the background of part B in the replicate was due to the same reason. On the other hand, the lack of the pipe extending from the electrical box in part A of the original was a result of methods omissions. I did not put enough detail into the way that the camera was held above the web in part A and used the word horizontal to describe the camera's orientation relative to the web. The pipe visible in the original figure is a result of the camera being at a slight angle; and its absence in the replicate is due to the camera angle being more horizontal. Furthermore, I mentioned that photo for part B was taken next to the second pillar of the bike rack structure. However, I did not mention that a portion of the structure itself was present in the original image. This explains why the structure was not seen in the replicate.

The map depicted in part C of both figures showed different levels of detail. In the original figure, the map was more zoomed relative to the replicate. The resultant extra buildings and map markings on the replicate arose because I did not describe the landmarks surrounding the Student Union in my methods section. I stated that the Student Union was at the center of the map image, but did not provide further information beyond that. Therefore, the person who replicated my figure had to approximate. In addition, the replicate lacked the scale marking and the logo seen in the bottom corners of part C of the original. These markings were not mentioned once in the methods. Thus, it is not surprising that they were not featured in the replication because the person could not have know about them in the first place. The lack of cropping instructions in the methods was another reason for this omission.

In conclusion, the replicate figure was similar in many regards to the original, but exclusions from the methods section made certain components vague for the reader tasked with replication. These exclusions led to all of the discussed differences between the two figures aside from the weather. This project emphasized the importance of paying attention to details when creating a methods section so that the replication process can proceed as intended in the original work.

 

Post: