4 ms·

> For example, rather than finding an amazing article written by experts in a long-standing publication you’ll get some rantings from a random blog from someone

> For example, rather than finding an amazing article written by experts in a long-standing publication you’ll get some rantings from a random blog from someone broadly unqualified to opine on the subject and whose writings are full of inaccurate nonsense. That's not my experience. I appreciate the rant as much as the amazing article by "experts". What bothers me is in case of anything which make money for someone and who pays Google addwords fees is presented prominently while the rant is buried.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
Can you tell us what value you get out of rants from unqualified people? What actionable thing comes out of consuming such information? Because I can’t imagine why anyone would do that, since “experts” are hardly ever a homogenuous crowd and disagree even among themselves. Why not just look at another side but one that is still made by a qualified expert?
- account42 4y ago
  Someone "unqualified" may have a viewpoint that the "experts" have not considered or are unwilling to state publicly for various reasons. Of course what value you can derive from such an article depends on the value of "unqualified" here for which we only have gp's labels in this example. The only other mentioned difference is the format - a blog "rant" vs. something published in an established publication and I don't think that is enough to go on to discard the former. > “experts” are hardly ever a homogenuous crowd Except when they are. The community of so-called experts discarding what eventually turned out to be the truth because it goes against their thinking is hardly unheard of.
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  What value do you get? You're here reading and commenting on things from anonymous people on a web site that hasn't existed for a hundred years. > still made by a qualified expert? It is pretty common that an expert who disagrees with the consensus will not be qualified, because the principal requirement for getting qualified is that you agree with the consensus.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago

Can you tell us what value you get out of rants from unqualified people? What actionable thing comes out of consuming such information? Because I can’t imagine why anyone would do that, since “experts” are hardly ever a homogenuous crowd and disagree even among themselves. Why not just look at another side but one that is still made by a qualified expert?

account42 4y ago
Someone "unqualified" may have a viewpoint that the "experts" have not considered or are unwilling to state publicly for various reasons. Of course what value you can derive from such an article depends on the value of "unqualified" here for which we only have gp's labels in this example. The only other mentioned difference is the format - a blog "rant" vs. something published in an established publication and I don't think that is enough to go on to discard the former. > “experts” are hardly ever a homogenuous crowd Except when they are. The community of so-called experts discarding what eventually turned out to be the truth because it goes against their thinking is hardly unheard of.
carlosjobim 4y ago
What value do you get? You're here reading and commenting on things from anonymous people on a web site that hasn't existed for a hundred years. > still made by a qualified expert? It is pretty common that an expert who disagrees with the consensus will not be qualified, because the principal requirement for getting qualified is that you agree with the consensus.