Re: citations. I left a longer note on Leigh’s comment about my view. Most of the articles are already citation heavy. I’m glad you click those links. I think the vast majority of readers though are incorrectly overestimating the trustworthiness of those citations. We had a pretty good post about all of the psychology papers that are failing to replicate and why. Lots of studies misinterpret results, then the media almost always misinterprets the study, and then the coach can be at fault too. We’ll keep including them and this is a topic I’ll be discussing with our advisory board.
Re: openness about what goes wrong. There’s a really specific version of this in our style guide under the section empathic tutorials. We like coaches as authors because they have the most empathy for all the ways a reader might struggle with advice.
Re: categories. I hadn’t considered anyone would take a hard look at the categorization system. I just wanted to group the articles that we’d done so far and haven’t had time to put any thought into long term categorization systems. In all probability it’s going to have to be Google.
Re: headlines. Noted.