That’s (what you wrote here telling to Josh) is exactly how I felt for Josh’s ‘failure’ for the article. Josh seemed two or three steps ahead/beyond the average readers who are ordinarily comfortable in what they are trying to learn at the first sight/encounter of an article, while his topic has layers to dig into to glean the real meaning(s).
A little tweaking in the title as George did here would have drawn me, an average one reading to learn, in immediately to ‘devour’ the article. Authors have to think of the ‘general’ reading audiences first ‘by coming down’ a level to the easier-to-grasp for what’s-in-it-titles.
GA resonates how & what I see, but as Josh answered to GA, Josh seems to be tackling a different angle that a middle level of reader can’t see easily without deep contemplations, that which not many would invest in time & energy, but simply click out. And, thus, the author ‘failed’ for holding the potential readers.
I might be wrong, but this is how I feel, & GA makes sense to the way I see it.