3 ms·
So your idea is that the people at the site, with the most information on the conditions, should ignore what they know and carry out the wishes of internet comm
by rgbrenner 8y ago
So your idea is that the people at the site, with the most information on the conditions, should ignore what they know and carry out the wishes of internet commenters who have no direct information about what's happening.
And further, the people with the most at stake.. whos full attention is on accomplishing it safely... should instead use ideas from people with no real attachment to its success, and no real consequences to its failure, who came up with an idea on a whim.
I think it's a waste of time to build anything like you suggest. The experts on the ground, with all of the information at their hands about current conditions, who's full attention is on this issue... can handle it without the internets help. The people on the ground aren't dummies either. Maybe instead work on trusting that they really do want to help, and they're doing the best work they can considering the resources and conditions they are working under.
- craigdalton 8y agoNo, that's not my idea. They would be silly to ignore what they know to be true. But they might be open to hearing about new/prototype technology they do not know about. And conditions/local knowledge could be shared. Lastly I have been involved with emergency humanitarian crises where the national team did not have access to information they needed. Agree, you don't want every thought bubble funnelled into an overwhelmed operations centre. Perhaps a gated entry into the system based on expertise through snowballed invitations could optimise input. Again, maybe the cave rescue is not the greatest application, but there is a great need for better expert elicitation systems.