The idea for talking about what goes on in the supplement of papers... My talk contained three examples selected to make a number of points: Methods in the supplement frequently contain ideas that transcend the specifics of the paper. These ideas can be valuable in the long run, but when they are in the supplement it is harder to identify what they are and to appreciate their significance. Supplements frequently contain errors (my own included). These errors make it difficult for others to understand the methods and implement them independently. In RNA-Seq specifically, there are a number of methodological issues buried in the supplements of various papers that have caused confusion in the field. The constant push of methods to supplements is part of a general trend to overemphasize the importance of data while minimizing the relevance of methods.