I find essays all jumbled together into one lone rambling block ... to be teeth-grittingly nerve-wracking ... too much too read. Same here. Articles that read like badly constructed press releases do more harm than good, triggering responses like those of 'iceman'; and understandably so.
If you want to grab the reader by the neck, the best way to so is to construct your article like (how) a proper press release (is supposed to look like):
- the heading; the subject matter
- the 'need to know' section; the main body, usually the whatses, the whyses, the howses, the outcomeses
- the 'nice to know' section; the background, usually the whoses, the whereses, the whenses (and the follow-up whatses, whyses, howses and outcomses
..... therewith following a logical flow, much like a proper argument.
The article in question violates all these rules.
The heading is false and the (easy to recognize) need to know and nice to know sections are non-existent; all information is jumbled up randomly (a pleonasm/tautology).
The author of the article isn't doing either the reader any service nor the subject matter itself and reveals about him/herself his/her level of expertise in the matter.
I'm not necessarily criticizing SC, I'm criticizing the original author(s) and in effect the art, or rather, the lack thereof, of those who dare produce such abominations, no matter how well intended.