AskMe Flag? February 20, 2005 7:33 PM Subscribe
"Didn't check google before posting"
Can this be added as a reason to flag an AskMe post? Or is this already covered by "it breaks the guidelines"?
Can this be added as a reason to flag an AskMe post? Or is this already covered by "it breaks the guidelines"?
or, um, you could just like, google it for them (and this step is already done, because one would presumedly *check* to make *sure* it actually was easily google-able), and then link it nicely, with a couple suggestions perhaps about how to search effectively with google.
posted by fishfucker at 8:06 PM on February 20, 2005
posted by fishfucker at 8:06 PM on February 20, 2005
I think xmutex is on target here. People have varying amounts of Google-fu, and often the fun in AskMe comes from realizing that there are more effective ways to construct a Google search than might have occurred to one. (I'm thinking of this post, for instance, where I was looking for a "hemispherical magnifier"...turned out that it was known as a "dome magnifier", but I didn't know that.)
posted by Vidiot at 8:09 PM on February 20, 2005
posted by Vidiot at 8:09 PM on February 20, 2005
What fishfucker said.
It'd be nice if people with varying amounts of internet knowledge could ask reasonable questions on ask.me without having people come down on them because they haven't already spent hours refining their google search engine skills.
posted by vacapinta at 8:22 PM on February 20, 2005
It'd be nice if people with varying amounts of internet knowledge could ask reasonable questions on ask.me without having people come down on them because they haven't already spent hours refining their google search engine skills.
posted by vacapinta at 8:22 PM on February 20, 2005
When AskMe first began, I thought the same as you, rajbot, but then I realized that for some people, Google is completely unfathomable for some people.
posted by mischief at 8:34 PM on February 20, 2005
posted by mischief at 8:34 PM on February 20, 2005
I agree with vacapinta. I, for instance, would have been somewhat leery of googling for "homosexual twins".
Luckily, there are tons of biologists and social psychologists about.
posted by ontic at 8:37 PM on February 20, 2005
Luckily, there are tons of biologists and social psychologists about.
posted by ontic at 8:37 PM on February 20, 2005
There are many questions on AskMe that can be answered by a simple Google search requiring no Google-fu whatsoever.
For example, this question asks "Does anyone know of any twin studies about homosexuality?" If you type that *exact* question into google, you get the answer.
It is quite obvious that the asker didn't bother with a google search at all. Why waste AskMe resources with such an easily-googled question?
On the other hand, I *know* that there are some questions require a high Google-fu, and I'm not asking that those be deleted. In this thread, for example, I got a little good-answer check mark about my answer about a realistic godzilla suit. I found the answer via google, but it would have been difficult for the poster to do so. I'm not talking about flagging this kind of question.
If you really believe that flooding AskMe with easily-googled questions is a good thing, then perhaps the posting page shouldn't say "be sure you've checked out Google first".
posted by rajbot at 8:52 PM on February 20, 2005
For example, this question asks "Does anyone know of any twin studies about homosexuality?" If you type that *exact* question into google, you get the answer.
It is quite obvious that the asker didn't bother with a google search at all. Why waste AskMe resources with such an easily-googled question?
On the other hand, I *know* that there are some questions require a high Google-fu, and I'm not asking that those be deleted. In this thread, for example, I got a little good-answer check mark about my answer about a realistic godzilla suit. I found the answer via google, but it would have been difficult for the poster to do so. I'm not talking about flagging this kind of question.
If you really believe that flooding AskMe with easily-googled questions is a good thing, then perhaps the posting page shouldn't say "be sure you've checked out Google first".
posted by rajbot at 8:52 PM on February 20, 2005
Some people don't realize that Google is as easy as that.
I'm not kidding.
posted by mischief at 9:02 PM on February 20, 2005
I'm not kidding.
posted by mischief at 9:02 PM on February 20, 2005
What fishfucker said, but with much more vitriol and hate. Vitriol and hate that I had the common sense to edit out before posting.
posted by aspo at 9:17 PM on February 20, 2005
posted by aspo at 9:17 PM on February 20, 2005
Pretty much everything can be googled. Or looked up in the library. Or you can just ask your friends.
Somehow though I think AskMe would become pretty empty.
posted by c13 at 9:31 PM on February 20, 2005
Somehow though I think AskMe would become pretty empty.
posted by c13 at 9:31 PM on February 20, 2005
C13, you give Google too much credit. Sure, if you know all the appropriate terminology, you can probably google the answer. But if your question is along the lines of "What do you call that blah blah blah thing on blah blah blahs?", no amount of Google-fu will save you.
And this discussion isn't about looking up stuff in the library. And asking on AskMe is the functional equivalent of asking friends.
posted by Bugbread at 9:39 PM on February 20, 2005
And this discussion isn't about looking up stuff in the library. And asking on AskMe is the functional equivalent of asking friends.
posted by Bugbread at 9:39 PM on February 20, 2005
Rajbot, I posted the homosexuality question, and I replied to the one "why-didn't-you-Google" naysayer in thread. Here's what I said:
I did Google, but the information is overwhelming and all over the place. (I didn't Google Scholar though... didn't think of that.) I wanted recommendations and advice from people who might be studying this kind of thing. Maybe I didn't ask my question precisely enough. I didn't just want to be pointed to some psychological papers; I wanted someone to tell me what kind of stuff is going on now, to tell me if recent research (the paper you pointed to cites its last study as being from 1991) has said anything new, and to tell me what that information means. I don't think its a misuse of AskMe to ask for community experts to edit down and interpret the huge mass of information available online.
I can see I phrased the question poorly and it looked like I wanted any reference to twin studies. I should have said "good, recent" twin studies. That page you offer is a pretty poor offering, actually. It's:
1) unpublished
2) an exam dissertation
3) from 1992
4) inconclusive
While it's somewhat helpful, it's hardly the height of scientific achievement, and its conclusions are wholly vague. I wasn't happy with what I had googled up and clicking through the Google pages was too much, so I came to experts. I kinda envisioned people working in biology coming to help me - I didn't really expect people who didn't know anything about it would just randomly Google like I did. I misunderstood my audience, I guess. I'll be more precise next time.
posted by painquale at 9:44 PM on February 20, 2005
I did Google, but the information is overwhelming and all over the place. (I didn't Google Scholar though... didn't think of that.) I wanted recommendations and advice from people who might be studying this kind of thing. Maybe I didn't ask my question precisely enough. I didn't just want to be pointed to some psychological papers; I wanted someone to tell me what kind of stuff is going on now, to tell me if recent research (the paper you pointed to cites its last study as being from 1991) has said anything new, and to tell me what that information means. I don't think its a misuse of AskMe to ask for community experts to edit down and interpret the huge mass of information available online.
I can see I phrased the question poorly and it looked like I wanted any reference to twin studies. I should have said "good, recent" twin studies. That page you offer is a pretty poor offering, actually. It's:
1) unpublished
2) an exam dissertation
3) from 1992
4) inconclusive
While it's somewhat helpful, it's hardly the height of scientific achievement, and its conclusions are wholly vague. I wasn't happy with what I had googled up and clicking through the Google pages was too much, so I came to experts. I kinda envisioned people working in biology coming to help me - I didn't really expect people who didn't know anything about it would just randomly Google like I did. I misunderstood my audience, I guess. I'll be more precise next time.
posted by painquale at 9:44 PM on February 20, 2005
That's precisely my point, bugbread. If someone posts a question, there probably is a reason for that, whatever that may be. So I don't agree with flagging a post just because someone else can find an answer without AskMe.
posted by c13 at 9:54 PM on February 20, 2005
posted by c13 at 9:54 PM on February 20, 2005
C13, sorry, I misunderstood what you were getting at.
But, regarding this: "If someone posts a question, there probably is a reason for that, whatever that may be.", of course, I agree that there is probably a reason, but I think those break down into two categories: "They couldn't find the answer on Google", and "They didn't even try." The first category, "Couldn't be found on Google" doesn't necessarily mean it isn't findable on Google, just that they were unable to find the answer. Most questions (besides chatfilter) probably fall into this category, and there's nothing wrong with it. We're talking about answers that could easily be found on Google, with only the knowledge and info in the first post, and which it is incredibly apparent weren't even cursorily Googled for.
posted by Bugbread at 10:15 PM on February 20, 2005
But, regarding this: "If someone posts a question, there probably is a reason for that, whatever that may be.", of course, I agree that there is probably a reason, but I think those break down into two categories: "They couldn't find the answer on Google", and "They didn't even try." The first category, "Couldn't be found on Google" doesn't necessarily mean it isn't findable on Google, just that they were unable to find the answer. Most questions (besides chatfilter) probably fall into this category, and there's nothing wrong with it. We're talking about answers that could easily be found on Google, with only the knowledge and info in the first post, and which it is incredibly apparent weren't even cursorily Googled for.
posted by Bugbread at 10:15 PM on February 20, 2005
Many questions are worth asking here even if you already have a good google answer. The Gay twin study question is a great example. First you look it up in wikipedia, then you do a quick google, then you AskMe, etc. Isn't that just called research? Is AskMe specifically not a research tool?
What exactly is AskMe for anyway... Certainly headphone questions are better answered by headwize.
posted by Chuckles at 10:48 PM on February 20, 2005
What exactly is AskMe for anyway... Certainly headphone questions are better answered by headwize.
posted by Chuckles at 10:48 PM on February 20, 2005
Chuckles, if you've googled and wikied and still have questions, fine. But letting us know what's wrong with (or left out of) the googled/wikied answers is simply asking a better question.
posted by mediareport at 11:03 PM on February 20, 2005
posted by mediareport at 11:03 PM on February 20, 2005
I suppose if we're splitting questions into two categories, a better way would be to distinguish between posts asking for some factual information and the ones asking about an opinion. The former one can be easily googled, while the latter one is not. For example, if I wanted to know what a turbomolecular pump is (whatever..) I wouldn't even think of using anything other than Google. On the other hand, if I wanted an opinion about something, particularly an opinion of someone here, Google would be less than useful.
Its just that its hard for someone else to know my motives for posting a question here, therefore I don't think that whole flagging idea is particularly good.
On preview: noone is required to answer AskMe questions, you know..
posted by c13 at 11:05 PM on February 20, 2005
Its just that its hard for someone else to know my motives for posting a question here, therefore I don't think that whole flagging idea is particularly good.
On preview: noone is required to answer AskMe questions, you know..
posted by c13 at 11:05 PM on February 20, 2005
C13: Partially agreed about the two categories. As you say, opinion/advice questions cannot be easily Googled. I disagree that factual information questions can so universally be Googled. I don't know what the percentages are, of course, but there are some factual questions where the asker doesn't have enough info for a Google search, but enough for someone reading to know what they're talking about and either give them the answer or give them the terms they'd need to Google on their own. The "hemispherical magnifier - dome magnifier" question mentioned above is like that. Look as much as you want for hemispherical magnifiers on Google, and you're not going to get jack. Mention it on here, and someone can say, "What you're thinking of is a dome magnifier", and then all of a sudden Google is a glorious paradise of relevant results.
As another example of a factual question on AskMe right now that Google is pretty much useless for: "I want to purchase envelopes similar to the ones NetFlix uses. Where can I get these?"
posted by Bugbread at 11:19 PM on February 20, 2005
As another example of a factual question on AskMe right now that Google is pretty much useless for: "I want to purchase envelopes similar to the ones NetFlix uses. Where can I get these?"
posted by Bugbread at 11:19 PM on February 20, 2005
What exactly is AskMe for anyway... Certainly headphone questions are better answered by headwize.
Well, that in itself assumes knowledge. Where are sites I can get -good- advice on headphones? Google is tough when any consumer product is involved since most sites seem to just want to sell you something. So asking other users advice, as well as what sites they trust on questions of this nature is a really valuable use of Ask.me
posted by vacapinta at 11:28 PM on February 20, 2005
Well, that in itself assumes knowledge. Where are sites I can get -good- advice on headphones? Google is tough when any consumer product is involved since most sites seem to just want to sell you something. So asking other users advice, as well as what sites they trust on questions of this nature is a really valuable use of Ask.me
posted by vacapinta at 11:28 PM on February 20, 2005
What fishfucker, vacapinta, and bugbread said.
It's not nice to presume that lack of Google-fu skillz is tantamount to a lack of trying. (I actually like doing this for other people because I get the opportunity to learn more about the subject AND help out at the same time.)
I have to say though, that a big part of getting great answers is asking the right questions.
"Maybe I didn't ask my question precisely enough."
For what it's worth, painquale, I took your question to mean that you were only looking for formal studies on the subject. I pointed to Google Scholar since you may not have been aware of it and that would be the best place to hunt - and filter down to your own needs. Also, I suspect mediareport was only trying to gauge how informed you already were, or whether you wanted something else, which you did.
posted by Lush at 1:35 AM on February 21, 2005
It's not nice to presume that lack of Google-fu skillz is tantamount to a lack of trying. (I actually like doing this for other people because I get the opportunity to learn more about the subject AND help out at the same time.)
I have to say though, that a big part of getting great answers is asking the right questions.
"Maybe I didn't ask my question precisely enough."
For what it's worth, painquale, I took your question to mean that you were only looking for formal studies on the subject. I pointed to Google Scholar since you may not have been aware of it and that would be the best place to hunt - and filter down to your own needs. Also, I suspect mediareport was only trying to gauge how informed you already were, or whether you wanted something else, which you did.
posted by Lush at 1:35 AM on February 21, 2005
AskMe is what it is. I'm not a big fan of it partly because I don't need it. For whatever reason, I can pretty much find anything on the Internet. (Except happiness) Other people find AskMe a key part of, or all of, their Internet research toolbox. What's wrong with that? It's a tool. There's a large overlap between such tools and preferring one over another is often a matter of personal choice.
More specifically, google-fu is really sort of an art. It's not about using all the advanced search features (which I normally don't use)—it's about getting to the heart of things, having a quick grasp of what makes something what it is and not something else. Not everyone can do that. For those that can't, Google presents a huge mass of undifferentiated information. AskMe is the better tool for them.
This is why we have different tools.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:12 AM on February 21, 2005
More specifically, google-fu is really sort of an art. It's not about using all the advanced search features (which I normally don't use)—it's about getting to the heart of things, having a quick grasp of what makes something what it is and not something else. Not everyone can do that. For those that can't, Google presents a huge mass of undifferentiated information. AskMe is the better tool for them.
This is why we have different tools.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:12 AM on February 21, 2005
vacapinta, I was not clear enough, I have no problem with headphone questions at all. Sorry. I just couldn't believe there were complaints about questions like the one on gay twin studies, so I picked some low hanging fruit for a comparison.
posted by Chuckles at 5:56 AM on February 21, 2005
posted by Chuckles at 5:56 AM on February 21, 2005
It's not like Matt is going to delete an answered question anyway. Who would that help?
posted by smackfu at 6:05 AM on February 21, 2005
posted by smackfu at 6:05 AM on February 21, 2005
"It's not like Matt is going to delete an answered question anyway."
Oh yes he has.
posted by mischief at 7:08 AM on February 21, 2005
Oh yes he has.
posted by mischief at 7:08 AM on February 21, 2005
So asking other users advice, as well as what sites they trust on questions of this nature is a really valuable use of Ask.me
I agree with vacapinta. Metafilter is a clique of like-minded people and though Google can find answers all over the web, it would take an unworthwhile amount of time to try and sort out its credibility and reliability. If a Mefier says it in AskMe, I trust the advice as much as I'd trust a real world friend's advice [pinch of salt and all that...]
posted by meech at 1:35 PM on February 21, 2005
I agree with vacapinta. Metafilter is a clique of like-minded people and though Google can find answers all over the web, it would take an unworthwhile amount of time to try and sort out its credibility and reliability. If a Mefier says it in AskMe, I trust the advice as much as I'd trust a real world friend's advice [pinch of salt and all that...]
posted by meech at 1:35 PM on February 21, 2005
Few of us with a puppet or two below 15,000 feel this is the right thing. Metafilter, without the nonsensical idiots that have been here forever, is not metafilter. That is our position.
Nope. I like it. I like change.
posted by meech at 1:41 PM on February 21, 2005
Nope. I like it. I like change.
posted by meech at 1:41 PM on February 21, 2005
I always wondered how people posted things in the wrong thead now I know...
posted by meech at 1:43 PM on February 21, 2005
posted by meech at 1:43 PM on February 21, 2005
I think it bears noting that:
GOOGLE DOESN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
GOOGLE JUST FINDS WEBSITES.
As far as answers go, you're getting them from whatever willy-nilly sites turn out to be good lexical matches for your search term, and it's not always easy to tell if you're getting the truth, or the whole story.
It's Ask MetaFilter, not Ask the Internet, so chill on the Google-has-all-the-answers routine. Yes, we all love Google, we think everything they do is gold - GOLD!
But, while it seems an obvious point, some folks don't seem to get the fact that Google doesn't publish all the sites they index. They don't vet the info. They don't personalize it to your needs. They don't answer questions.
There is nothing wrong with supplementing all the published info under the sun with answers from AskMe, if only for help interpreting it all.
So chill, Google cops. Within reason, of course. If someone wants to use their once-a-week question on a simple, binary, factual answer that they could have easily gotten online ("what's the capital of Zaire?") then it's their loss.
posted by scarabic at 1:59 PM on February 21, 2005
GOOGLE DOESN'T ACTUALLY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
GOOGLE JUST FINDS WEBSITES.
As far as answers go, you're getting them from whatever willy-nilly sites turn out to be good lexical matches for your search term, and it's not always easy to tell if you're getting the truth, or the whole story.
It's Ask MetaFilter, not Ask the Internet, so chill on the Google-has-all-the-answers routine. Yes, we all love Google, we think everything they do is gold - GOLD!
But, while it seems an obvious point, some folks don't seem to get the fact that Google doesn't publish all the sites they index. They don't vet the info. They don't personalize it to your needs. They don't answer questions.
There is nothing wrong with supplementing all the published info under the sun with answers from AskMe, if only for help interpreting it all.
So chill, Google cops. Within reason, of course. If someone wants to use their once-a-week question on a simple, binary, factual answer that they could have easily gotten online ("what's the capital of Zaire?") then it's their loss.
posted by scarabic at 1:59 PM on February 21, 2005
"...and it's not always easy to tell if you're getting the truth, or the whole story."
Actually, I find the opposite to be the case. The wide spectrum of "answers" you get from a search makes it more possible, for me anyway, to detect the bullshit. I've suspected that a difference in people's experience of this sort of thing is whether they are by nature or upbringing skeptical (or not). I was raised to be skeptical of every source by default and having a wide variety of sources is a tremendous help to me. In this sense I also trust AskMe less than Google, even though I have a great deal of respect for the very smart and informed mefi community.
Also, Google does directly provide answers, you know.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:11 PM on February 21, 2005
Actually, I find the opposite to be the case. The wide spectrum of "answers" you get from a search makes it more possible, for me anyway, to detect the bullshit. I've suspected that a difference in people's experience of this sort of thing is whether they are by nature or upbringing skeptical (or not). I was raised to be skeptical of every source by default and having a wide variety of sources is a tremendous help to me. In this sense I also trust AskMe less than Google, even though I have a great deal of respect for the very smart and informed mefi community.
Also, Google does directly provide answers, you know.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:11 PM on February 21, 2005
Right, but no one's saying people should shell out for Google Answers before they post here.
Actually, I find the opposite to be the case.
Okay, this would mean that you find it "easy" to seperate all the good information on the web from the questionable. I can't disprove your claim, for your purposes, so I will simply take my hat off to you and compliment you on this remarkable talent. You must be a lot smarter than me.
makes it more possible
"More possible" is along lines I can actually believe. And yes, I'm familiar with concepts like cross-referencing. But Google isn't everything. AskMe also makes finding an answer "more possible," working in ways that the Google web search doesn't, always. You seem to have different opinions of their respective values. This would suggest that they are not of identical utility - not for all purposes. At that point, compulsory Googling doesn't make sense anymore.
It's always a good idea. Anyone who wants an answer would be a fool not to search the web. But AskMe is of pretty unique utility (at least versus web search - even the best in the world). I don't hold it against people who favor AskMe.
posted by scarabic at 2:53 PM on February 21, 2005
Actually, I find the opposite to be the case.
Okay, this would mean that you find it "easy" to seperate all the good information on the web from the questionable. I can't disprove your claim, for your purposes, so I will simply take my hat off to you and compliment you on this remarkable talent. You must be a lot smarter than me.
makes it more possible
"More possible" is along lines I can actually believe. And yes, I'm familiar with concepts like cross-referencing. But Google isn't everything. AskMe also makes finding an answer "more possible," working in ways that the Google web search doesn't, always. You seem to have different opinions of their respective values. This would suggest that they are not of identical utility - not for all purposes. At that point, compulsory Googling doesn't make sense anymore.
It's always a good idea. Anyone who wants an answer would be a fool not to search the web. But AskMe is of pretty unique utility (at least versus web search - even the best in the world). I don't hold it against people who favor AskMe.
posted by scarabic at 2:53 PM on February 21, 2005
"You must be a lot smarter than me."
Well, that looks a lot like sarcasm, but I'll take it at face value. No, I'm not a lot smarter than you or anyone else. It's just something I do well because for whatever reason it's easy to me. I credit habit established early in life. Maybe it's something else. To be clear:
"Okay, this would mean that you find it 'easy' to seperate all the good information on the web from the questionable."
...this is correct. Four pages of Google results is much easier for me to decipher in terms of credibility than two articles in a respected magazine or something a friend tells me. It just is. It's like the Sesame Street "which thing doesn't belong?" Biases become much more clear, as do variation (and biases) of primary sources; familiarity with the subject becomes much more clear; and using real authorities as sort of a (mildly trusted) litmus test is possible.
It's a lot easier for me to feel confident that I've really got the true gist of a thing by listening to a thousand cacaphonous Internet voices than it is in listening to, say, a single university professor. Individuals disguise the limitations of their own knowledge in ways that become transparent when their knowledge is compared.
But that's because, for whatever reasons, Google (and related) is (are) a tool that I use well and works well for me. As I said earlier, it's not the best tool for everyone, nor for every purpose. I earlier defended the appropriateness of people using AskMe as their primary resource and ignoring Google—and I meant it. But the supposed necessity of doing so is not universal; and, in my case, it's quite the opposite.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:28 PM on February 21, 2005
Well, that looks a lot like sarcasm, but I'll take it at face value. No, I'm not a lot smarter than you or anyone else. It's just something I do well because for whatever reason it's easy to me. I credit habit established early in life. Maybe it's something else. To be clear:
"Okay, this would mean that you find it 'easy' to seperate all the good information on the web from the questionable."
...this is correct. Four pages of Google results is much easier for me to decipher in terms of credibility than two articles in a respected magazine or something a friend tells me. It just is. It's like the Sesame Street "which thing doesn't belong?" Biases become much more clear, as do variation (and biases) of primary sources; familiarity with the subject becomes much more clear; and using real authorities as sort of a (mildly trusted) litmus test is possible.
It's a lot easier for me to feel confident that I've really got the true gist of a thing by listening to a thousand cacaphonous Internet voices than it is in listening to, say, a single university professor. Individuals disguise the limitations of their own knowledge in ways that become transparent when their knowledge is compared.
But that's because, for whatever reasons, Google (and related) is (are) a tool that I use well and works well for me. As I said earlier, it's not the best tool for everyone, nor for every purpose. I earlier defended the appropriateness of people using AskMe as their primary resource and ignoring Google—and I meant it. But the supposed necessity of doing so is not universal; and, in my case, it's quite the opposite.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:28 PM on February 21, 2005
Yeah, I think it's foolish to ignore Google, certainly. But then, actually, many questioners might already have checked Google before, but are looking for the AskMe slice of things, if only to make sure they didn't miss something key. It's hard to Google for the "gotcha" you don't know exists :)
"You must be a lot smarter than me."
Well, I guess it was offered in a smart-ass tone, but literally, it must be true as far this application goes. It depends a lot on the nature of the question, but I find it hard to reach real confidence in an answer via Google. It's one thing to compare the validity of one source over another. And it is encouraging to see the same information in more than one place. And there are some judgement calls you can make based on the "real authority" status of research institutions and certain publications. But it's a complex information soup, and you have to make judgment calls all the way down the line in order to navigate it. I'm glad you have a system that works for you, but you have to admit it's based on a series of judgment calls. If some can't or don' t think they can make those, they're not going to have as much luck.
The other thing is hindsight, which gets back to the unknown-unknowns issue. Even if you can filter the validity of 1000 Google results, you can't be aware of what it doesn't show you. And sometimes it doesn't show you key info because you're not searching quite right.
Once you know the answer, you can see how easy it would have been to Google for. But when you really don't have a clue... This is what sometimes bugs me about the Google Cops. They offer up the perfect 3-word Google query as if any idiot should have known. But when you're in the dark about an issue, you're.... in the dark!
posted by scarabic at 4:05 PM on February 21, 2005
"You must be a lot smarter than me."
Well, I guess it was offered in a smart-ass tone, but literally, it must be true as far this application goes. It depends a lot on the nature of the question, but I find it hard to reach real confidence in an answer via Google. It's one thing to compare the validity of one source over another. And it is encouraging to see the same information in more than one place. And there are some judgement calls you can make based on the "real authority" status of research institutions and certain publications. But it's a complex information soup, and you have to make judgment calls all the way down the line in order to navigate it. I'm glad you have a system that works for you, but you have to admit it's based on a series of judgment calls. If some can't or don' t think they can make those, they're not going to have as much luck.
The other thing is hindsight, which gets back to the unknown-unknowns issue. Even if you can filter the validity of 1000 Google results, you can't be aware of what it doesn't show you. And sometimes it doesn't show you key info because you're not searching quite right.
Once you know the answer, you can see how easy it would have been to Google for. But when you really don't have a clue... This is what sometimes bugs me about the Google Cops. They offer up the perfect 3-word Google query as if any idiot should have known. But when you're in the dark about an issue, you're.... in the dark!
posted by scarabic at 4:05 PM on February 21, 2005
scarabic is right. Even if information related to a question can be found by what looks like a simple search, it's not wrong to ask the question. The search may not be so simple for the questioner.
In the case of the one question I posted to AskMe, I wanted actual people to answer, based on their experience. I had done a Google search, and read the results, but the corporate viewpoints that made up the vast majority of the results were not what I wanted. AskMe gave me what I was looking for, even though my question there was pretty clumsy.
If your googling skills are of such high caliber that simple questions to AskMe annoy you, I bet you can recognize those questions easily. Ignore them.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:06 PM on February 21, 2005
In the case of the one question I posted to AskMe, I wanted actual people to answer, based on their experience. I had done a Google search, and read the results, but the corporate viewpoints that made up the vast majority of the results were not what I wanted. AskMe gave me what I was looking for, even though my question there was pretty clumsy.
If your googling skills are of such high caliber that simple questions to AskMe annoy you, I bet you can recognize those questions easily. Ignore them.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:06 PM on February 21, 2005
Good point :)
Anyone who can tell the Viagra research info from the spam should find scrolling past elementary AskMe questions a near-involuntary breeze!
posted by scarabic at 4:31 PM on February 21, 2005
Anyone who can tell the Viagra research info from the spam should find scrolling past elementary AskMe questions a near-involuntary breeze!
posted by scarabic at 4:31 PM on February 21, 2005
They [the Google Cops] offer up the perfect 3-word Google query as if any idiot should have known.
That and the Google Cops sometimes offer up incorrect answers. Mo Nickles answered a question in AxMe and correctly pointed out that Google is a "shallow" resource - its reach is not as deep as commercial news databases such as Nexis or even common public library databases such as ProQuest.
posted by mlis at 4:35 PM on February 21, 2005
That and the Google Cops sometimes offer up incorrect answers. Mo Nickles answered a question in AxMe and correctly pointed out that Google is a "shallow" resource - its reach is not as deep as commercial news databases such as Nexis or even common public library databases such as ProQuest.
posted by mlis at 4:35 PM on February 21, 2005
Yeah, the Google-as-God deal is a Blogosphere deal, and much overplayed.
posted by scarabic at 4:51 PM on February 21, 2005
posted by scarabic at 4:51 PM on February 21, 2005
Two search engines that do answer questions, at least better than Google does, are AnswerBus and BrainBoost.
posted by kindall at 5:48 PM on February 21, 2005
posted by kindall at 5:48 PM on February 21, 2005
I find that Google results often point me to more complete and authoritative sources. I dunno. It's a tool that works well for me. What else can I say? I was very explicitly trying to avoid making any value judgments related to that. I disavowed the Google cops. But Google works well for me. Just as you're complaining that Google cops generalize about everyone's supposed ability to get the most out of Google, you're generalizing about their inability.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:01 PM on February 21, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:01 PM on February 21, 2005
If you really believe that flooding AskMe with easily-googled questions is a good thing, then perhaps the posting page shouldn't say "be sure you've checked out Google first".
I'd really like to see a direct response from the "GOOGLE COPS!!" folks to that one.
posted by mediareport at 8:14 PM on February 21, 2005
I'd really like to see a direct response from the "GOOGLE COPS!!" folks to that one.
posted by mediareport at 8:14 PM on February 21, 2005
My response would be "faulty premise" since nobody has said they believe "flooding AskMe with easily-googled questions is a good thing." I mean, "flooding", come on. We're all past high school debate tactics, I hope.
Of course its always a good idea to check Google first. Maybe you will find on your own what the capital of Zaire is. If not, then fine, come here and ask your question.
posted by vacapinta at 8:57 PM on February 21, 2005
Of course its always a good idea to check Google first. Maybe you will find on your own what the capital of Zaire is. If not, then fine, come here and ask your question.
posted by vacapinta at 8:57 PM on February 21, 2005
Agreed that Google is a shallow resource. I find that whenever I learn a lot about some subject that isn't intimately connected with computers or geek culture, Google often turns up nothing. I don't mean that it comes up with lots of pages to weed through... sometimes it comes up with literally nothing when I'm just searching for a simple two-word term. And when Google does come up with something, it's sometimes outdated or naive. It's just a flat fact that not all subjects are well-represented on the web.
Someone once said that if you look up a subject you know really well in the encyclopedia, you'll see how bad the entry is, and then you'll realize how bad all the other entries probably are. A lot of the time, Google is even worse.
Anyway, this thread started because rajbot was mad at my question about twin studies and homosexuality. Dgaicun answered it perfectly... he ran down a bit of history, provided a current reference, and explained how it overthrew the reference that rajbot (and Google) recommended. The answer was much better than anything I could have easily found on Google by myself, and clearly showed that dgaicun had a command of knowledge in this area (I still take his interpretation with a grain of salt, but I am more pleased to know his opinion than the trashy opinions I was finding on Google).
I think this tale suggests that we shouldn't shut down a question that looks easily Googleable. We should only shut it down if it's clear that the answer Google immediately and obviously provides can't be improved upon.
posted by painquale at 9:43 PM on February 21, 2005
Someone once said that if you look up a subject you know really well in the encyclopedia, you'll see how bad the entry is, and then you'll realize how bad all the other entries probably are. A lot of the time, Google is even worse.
Anyway, this thread started because rajbot was mad at my question about twin studies and homosexuality. Dgaicun answered it perfectly... he ran down a bit of history, provided a current reference, and explained how it overthrew the reference that rajbot (and Google) recommended. The answer was much better than anything I could have easily found on Google by myself, and clearly showed that dgaicun had a command of knowledge in this area (I still take his interpretation with a grain of salt, but I am more pleased to know his opinion than the trashy opinions I was finding on Google).
I think this tale suggests that we shouldn't shut down a question that looks easily Googleable. We should only shut it down if it's clear that the answer Google immediately and obviously provides can't be improved upon.
posted by painquale at 9:43 PM on February 21, 2005
In that thread, you wrote:
"Mediareport, I did Google, but the information is overwhelming and all over the place. (I didn't Google Scholar though... didn't think of that.)"
Unless you know enough not to have needed to ask the question in the first place, dgaicun's answer does not show that he has "a command of knowledge in this area". It implies that he does, but that and a quarter will buy you...nothing. He could have read one article in a popular science magazine that cited that particular study. His answer is nearly useless unless you go and do the work that you've already said you're unwilling to do. That's your problem, not Google's.
If I wanted to feel comfortable that I had a first approximation of good information on this subject, comprehensible to a layperson, I'd expect to spend an evening using Google (and Google Scholar and others) as a starting point. You can get to Medline, for crying out loud, on the Internet.
A large portion of mefites hide behind their usernames and provide no personal information about themselves. When one or two people give you what you think are "good" answers on AskMe, you have very little ability to evaluate the reliability of that information.
The recent write-up of AskMe flattered us and said that we are 20,000 smart people. But a handful among 20,000 above-average (intelligence, knowledge, whatever we're measuring) people are possibly worse sources to go to than average or "dumb" people. "Dumb" people either A) are aware that they have no clue; or B) make it completely obvious. A "smart" person very often knows just enough to be dangerous.
There is only one easy way to get the most correct answer to a question: find the most authoritative source on the subject, and ask him/her. All other ways are hard (and the "asking an expert" strategy isn't so easy, either). The only thing easy is is to make some half-assed search and, in the end, choose a source that you're merely comfortable with, or is convenient, or validates your predispositions. With anything that's not trivial, I'd bet that this characterizes the majority of AskMe questioners and answerers.
If AskMe is not part of a diversified research effort, then it's mostly for comfort, not learning.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:14 PM on February 21, 2005
"Mediareport, I did Google, but the information is overwhelming and all over the place. (I didn't Google Scholar though... didn't think of that.)"
Unless you know enough not to have needed to ask the question in the first place, dgaicun's answer does not show that he has "a command of knowledge in this area". It implies that he does, but that and a quarter will buy you...nothing. He could have read one article in a popular science magazine that cited that particular study. His answer is nearly useless unless you go and do the work that you've already said you're unwilling to do. That's your problem, not Google's.
If I wanted to feel comfortable that I had a first approximation of good information on this subject, comprehensible to a layperson, I'd expect to spend an evening using Google (and Google Scholar and others) as a starting point. You can get to Medline, for crying out loud, on the Internet.
A large portion of mefites hide behind their usernames and provide no personal information about themselves. When one or two people give you what you think are "good" answers on AskMe, you have very little ability to evaluate the reliability of that information.
The recent write-up of AskMe flattered us and said that we are 20,000 smart people. But a handful among 20,000 above-average (intelligence, knowledge, whatever we're measuring) people are possibly worse sources to go to than average or "dumb" people. "Dumb" people either A) are aware that they have no clue; or B) make it completely obvious. A "smart" person very often knows just enough to be dangerous.
There is only one easy way to get the most correct answer to a question: find the most authoritative source on the subject, and ask him/her. All other ways are hard (and the "asking an expert" strategy isn't so easy, either). The only thing easy is is to make some half-assed search and, in the end, choose a source that you're merely comfortable with, or is convenient, or validates your predispositions. With anything that's not trivial, I'd bet that this characterizes the majority of AskMe questioners and answerers.
If AskMe is not part of a diversified research effort, then it's mostly for comfort, not learning.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:14 PM on February 21, 2005
Eszter Hargittai, a genuine expert in this area (well, a relatively young academic specializing in this subject) and one of the bloggers at Crooked Timber, is a good starting point if one is interested in actually looking for the answer to the question How useful is Google? rather than relying upon intution and anecdote.
She writes in this BBC article:
"User studies suggest that the particular strategies people employ to look for content is a more important predictor of their ability to find material than what specific search engine they use."
There's an aquired skill in effectively using a web search engine, and I imagine it's not unlike (in its limited way) the skills that a research librarian has. It's an intelligent "pruning" process; and it's a "creative approach to the problem" sort of a process. Not unlike human memory, what seems to be the easiest and most direct route to some information turns out to be roadblocked. You must, essentially, find another way to ask the question. An old canard among scientists is that it's not the answering of questions that's so hard, it's knowing what questions to ask.
The most important information-retrieval service a search engine performs (for the proficient) is to provide a crude landscape of the terrain surrounding what you're looking for. It may not provide this directly: it may point you to another reference. Or, better yet, several.
Here are her CT posts on this subject and related of interest (in chronological order):
She writes in this BBC article:
"User studies suggest that the particular strategies people employ to look for content is a more important predictor of their ability to find material than what specific search engine they use."
There's an aquired skill in effectively using a web search engine, and I imagine it's not unlike (in its limited way) the skills that a research librarian has. It's an intelligent "pruning" process; and it's a "creative approach to the problem" sort of a process. Not unlike human memory, what seems to be the easiest and most direct route to some information turns out to be roadblocked. You must, essentially, find another way to ask the question. An old canard among scientists is that it's not the answering of questions that's so hard, it's knowing what questions to ask.
The most important information-retrieval service a search engine performs (for the proficient) is to provide a crude landscape of the terrain surrounding what you're looking for. It may not provide this directly: it may point you to another reference. Or, better yet, several.
Here are her CT posts on this subject and related of interest (in chronological order):
- Where do you search?
- More on assumptions about search engine use (and related research)
- What can you not find online?
- WWW conference
- Internet use reports
- Online communities
- Memories of my dissertation
- Nice results
- Ask and Jeeves answers
Fine, EB, it doesn't show that he has a good knowledge of the subject matter; it just implies that he does. But there are good reasons to think his answer is at least mostly kosher. His taking of a reasonably contentious but plausible interpretation and his facility with the language lends me to believe that he didn't just pull this from a magazine. Maybe I'm not right, but we at least have some good clues. I don't know whether there have since been studies since have disconfirmed this one, but I did get a link to PubMed article by two authors who are by far the most cited in the field (and that's something I did find when I was searching on Google), and I got an explanation of how their new findings disconfirm their earlier ones. All of that checks out with the primary sources I've looked at. This all seems pretty solid to me - not irrefutably solid, but pretty good nonetheless. If you want to overthrow my reading of the situation, be my guest.
What's great is that I got to this stage without having to waste a couple of hours trying to sort through the material. I'm not going to dedicate an evening to studying an idle question I had after watching an episode of The Simpsons. I'm sure I could teach myself anything if you give me a library and the internet and all the time in the world, but I have other, more important work to do. If I'm not happy with what I pull up on Google after a bit of work, I'll go to place where I think I can get ideas fastest. That's AskMe.
If AskMe is not part of a diversified research effort, then it's mostly for comfort, not learning.
I didn't just rely on AskMe... I checked Google first, it was overwhelming so I asked AskMe, I got a great response that synchs up with and goes beyond everything I found on Google, I read a couple of articles to corroborate, and everything checks out. I'm at a pretty good waypoint.
Maybe you object to me treating dcaigun's response as a final answer. I don't. It's a piece of information (just like a really good web page) that's easy to find and that helps me out more than a needless amount of time on Google would. Like you, I also think a diversified research strategy is important, as is having good Googling skills. But I see AskMe as a part of that research strategy. In many respects, for many elements of research (especially when starting out), AskMe can be better and faster than Google. (Do you disagree with that? I'm actually not quite sure what your attack against me was all about.)
posted by painquale at 12:34 AM on February 22, 2005
What's great is that I got to this stage without having to waste a couple of hours trying to sort through the material. I'm not going to dedicate an evening to studying an idle question I had after watching an episode of The Simpsons. I'm sure I could teach myself anything if you give me a library and the internet and all the time in the world, but I have other, more important work to do. If I'm not happy with what I pull up on Google after a bit of work, I'll go to place where I think I can get ideas fastest. That's AskMe.
If AskMe is not part of a diversified research effort, then it's mostly for comfort, not learning.
I didn't just rely on AskMe... I checked Google first, it was overwhelming so I asked AskMe, I got a great response that synchs up with and goes beyond everything I found on Google, I read a couple of articles to corroborate, and everything checks out. I'm at a pretty good waypoint.
Maybe you object to me treating dcaigun's response as a final answer. I don't. It's a piece of information (just like a really good web page) that's easy to find and that helps me out more than a needless amount of time on Google would. Like you, I also think a diversified research strategy is important, as is having good Googling skills. But I see AskMe as a part of that research strategy. In many respects, for many elements of research (especially when starting out), AskMe can be better and faster than Google. (Do you disagree with that? I'm actually not quite sure what your attack against me was all about.)
posted by painquale at 12:34 AM on February 22, 2005
Never mind, painquale — EB is just trying to be helpful by pointing out what a good googler he is, and then pointing it out a few more times.
posted by taz at 1:32 AM on February 22, 2005
posted by taz at 1:32 AM on February 22, 2005
Was it an attack? I apologize. I get in these moods. And I have this habitual tone that I'm not always aware of.
I guess several things put me off. The first is the dominant claim here that Google isn't a very useful tool. My own experience is that it is. I didn't assert that it necessarily was useful for everyone else; but you and scarabic and others did assert a univeral inadequacy. That seemed a bit presumptious to me.
And then when I read the thread, and dgaicun's answer, given your approval I was surprised at how not credible I found it. That's not to say that he's wrong. But you say:
"His taking of a reasonably contentious but plausible interpretation and his facility with the language lends me to believe that he didn't just pull this from a magazine. Maybe I'm not right, but we at least have some good clues."
I think those are very unreliable clues. It's my experience that those are very unreliable clues.
In my pique I probably was presumptious myself and jumped to some conclusion I oughn't. I couldn't help but feel that the combination of dgaicun being a mefite and, I suspect, the felicity of his answer (to your sensibilities) gave it a weight of credibility that it had not earned. And I think that one of the best things that the Internet does with Google and the like is to be a very good litmus test for these sorts of credible and plausible assertions made by apparently credible people.
Finally, I've always been very puzzled by why most other mefites love AskMe while I've been mostly indifferent. I couldn't figure out why this was, and I've considered it off-and-on frequently. But in writing these comments I came to realize that I deeply mistrust AskMe (though respecting and trusting of my fellow mefites) because I fear it gives the comfort of the belief that one knows something without actually knowing much of anything. And that is a general problem that causes me much concern, starting with myself and self-criticism.
Anyway, you'll note that my first comment was a defense of AskMe and so it shouldn't surprise you that I agree with: I see AskMe as a part of that research strategy. But for how many people is it only "a part"?
On Preview: Oh, find something more productive to do, taz.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:38 AM on February 22, 2005
I guess several things put me off. The first is the dominant claim here that Google isn't a very useful tool. My own experience is that it is. I didn't assert that it necessarily was useful for everyone else; but you and scarabic and others did assert a univeral inadequacy. That seemed a bit presumptious to me.
And then when I read the thread, and dgaicun's answer, given your approval I was surprised at how not credible I found it. That's not to say that he's wrong. But you say:
"His taking of a reasonably contentious but plausible interpretation and his facility with the language lends me to believe that he didn't just pull this from a magazine. Maybe I'm not right, but we at least have some good clues."
I think those are very unreliable clues. It's my experience that those are very unreliable clues.
In my pique I probably was presumptious myself and jumped to some conclusion I oughn't. I couldn't help but feel that the combination of dgaicun being a mefite and, I suspect, the felicity of his answer (to your sensibilities) gave it a weight of credibility that it had not earned. And I think that one of the best things that the Internet does with Google and the like is to be a very good litmus test for these sorts of credible and plausible assertions made by apparently credible people.
Finally, I've always been very puzzled by why most other mefites love AskMe while I've been mostly indifferent. I couldn't figure out why this was, and I've considered it off-and-on frequently. But in writing these comments I came to realize that I deeply mistrust AskMe (though respecting and trusting of my fellow mefites) because I fear it gives the comfort of the belief that one knows something without actually knowing much of anything. And that is a general problem that causes me much concern, starting with myself and self-criticism.
Anyway, you'll note that my first comment was a defense of AskMe and so it shouldn't surprise you that I agree with: I see AskMe as a part of that research strategy. But for how many people is it only "a part"?
On Preview: Oh, find something more productive to do, taz.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:38 AM on February 22, 2005
Of course its always a good idea to check Google first.
Great, vacapinta. We don't disagree at all, then.
Three cheers for MeTa.
posted by mediareport at 2:15 AM on February 22, 2005
Great, vacapinta. We don't disagree at all, then.
Three cheers for MeTa.
posted by mediareport at 2:15 AM on February 22, 2005
For a subset of AskMe questions, EB's arguments are quite valid, especially when one considers the short exposure time questions receive. AskMe has virtually no peer review.
posted by mischief at 7:32 AM on February 22, 2005
posted by mischief at 7:32 AM on February 22, 2005
To me, it looks like the argument about Google's utility is not the central issue.
Flagging a question because you think it could be easily answered by using a search engine is, in effect, saying "this is a stupid question." Why is it a crime to ask such a question? If we were all expert googlers, and had infinite time, there would be no need for AskMe at all. We aren't, and we don't.
If you don't like a question because it looks stupid, scroll on past. I do it every day. Having stupid questions on AskMe doesn't cost you anything.
I actually found taz's comment useful, in that it summed up my feelings.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:25 AM on February 22, 2005
Flagging a question because you think it could be easily answered by using a search engine is, in effect, saying "this is a stupid question." Why is it a crime to ask such a question? If we were all expert googlers, and had infinite time, there would be no need for AskMe at all. We aren't, and we don't.
If you don't like a question because it looks stupid, scroll on past. I do it every day. Having stupid questions on AskMe doesn't cost you anything.
I actually found taz's comment useful, in that it summed up my feelings.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:25 AM on February 22, 2005
But in writing these comments I came to realize that I deeply mistrust AskMe (though respecting and trusting of my fellow mefites) because I fear it gives the comfort of the belief that one knows something without actually knowing much of anything.
forced to agree. A lot of people who don't necessarily have personal experience on the subject at hand will just google and post links/answers in the thread -- which is only helpful when the answer is well-known by google (meaning that the majority of folks that have content on the internet know the "correct" answer -- which isn't always the case, as demonstrated previously in the "hunt you down" etymology thread, and countless times when people attempt to spell check using google rather than a proper dictionary).
I'm not saying these people should stop what they're doing (because let's say, 95% of the time, all that's needed is some google research to get a fairly informative answer), but I must admit, I've been frustrated when some of my questions are answered with google links, because I've *already googled* (well, for the most part. I asked a question recently about how to go about testing out an ergonomic chair that I didn't spend any time googling for, but I was rather busy that day), and the user isn't providing me with any personal expertise (which imho, is the best reason to use Mefi -- to solicit personal expertise -- for example, if I wanted to fix my car and I could choose between asking a friend who worked at a bookstore where there was a Chilton's manual he could consult, and a friend who was a mechanic, well, i'd rather hear from the mechanic. In fact, i might not even want to hear from the friend at the bookstore at all, seeing as how i'd rather sort through the whole chilton's manual myself, rather than play "telephone" with the already-cryptic information inside.)
i guess, in summary: if things could've been googled, great -- you can still be helpful by suggesting google search terms. If things aren't particularly black-and-white facts that have a single answer, the most beneficial answers are probably from those people who have experience or expertise with the subject matter. if you don't know anything at all about the subject at hand, and you just link the first result you skimmed from google, then maybe it's not partocularly helpful.
posted by fishfucker at 10:51 AM on February 22, 2005
forced to agree. A lot of people who don't necessarily have personal experience on the subject at hand will just google and post links/answers in the thread -- which is only helpful when the answer is well-known by google (meaning that the majority of folks that have content on the internet know the "correct" answer -- which isn't always the case, as demonstrated previously in the "hunt you down" etymology thread, and countless times when people attempt to spell check using google rather than a proper dictionary).
I'm not saying these people should stop what they're doing (because let's say, 95% of the time, all that's needed is some google research to get a fairly informative answer), but I must admit, I've been frustrated when some of my questions are answered with google links, because I've *already googled* (well, for the most part. I asked a question recently about how to go about testing out an ergonomic chair that I didn't spend any time googling for, but I was rather busy that day), and the user isn't providing me with any personal expertise (which imho, is the best reason to use Mefi -- to solicit personal expertise -- for example, if I wanted to fix my car and I could choose between asking a friend who worked at a bookstore where there was a Chilton's manual he could consult, and a friend who was a mechanic, well, i'd rather hear from the mechanic. In fact, i might not even want to hear from the friend at the bookstore at all, seeing as how i'd rather sort through the whole chilton's manual myself, rather than play "telephone" with the already-cryptic information inside.)
i guess, in summary: if things could've been googled, great -- you can still be helpful by suggesting google search terms. If things aren't particularly black-and-white facts that have a single answer, the most beneficial answers are probably from those people who have experience or expertise with the subject matter. if you don't know anything at all about the subject at hand, and you just link the first result you skimmed from google, then maybe it's not partocularly helpful.
posted by fishfucker at 10:51 AM on February 22, 2005
I should qualify my agreement with the above statement: I don't necessarily mistrust AskMe, as there are many experts that answer questions, but often you'll have someone withthat clearly lacks experience with the subject at hand and is making suggestions that are questionable or just plain wrong in a manner that suggests an authorative answer. When people answer questions in Mefi I assume they do so because they *know* or have personal experience with the field/question. However, in IT support threads (a field of which I have four years of work experience in -- by no means an expert, but certainly, a reasonable journeyman/apprentice) I see all the time answers that make authorative declarations yet are from posters that are rather clearly uninformed or uneducated about the subject -- because their answer is flat out misinformation (in these situations I usually hold my tongue because i don't have the time to get in a disagreement with someone and because I'm confident that someone who knows what they're talking about will come along and clear things up). I can only assume that this also happens in other threads regarding topics that I know little about.
Basically, I guess I'm saying that if one doesn't know what they're talking about, then perhaps it would be better to let someone else answer the question -- although I know people are just trying to be helpful, so I suppose i'm rather the curdmugeon for suggesting their silence.
posted by fishfucker at 11:02 AM on February 22, 2005
Basically, I guess I'm saying that if one doesn't know what they're talking about, then perhaps it would be better to let someone else answer the question -- although I know people are just trying to be helpful, so I suppose i'm rather the curdmugeon for suggesting their silence.
posted by fishfucker at 11:02 AM on February 22, 2005
"Basically, I guess I'm saying that if one doesn't know what they're talking about, then perhaps it would be better to let someone else answer the question..."
I agree, but I'm asserting something a bit more far-reaching: none of us are competent at very accurately evaluating our own competency (unless, apparently, we're very depressed) and so given that many AskMe answers stand on their own, and seem authoritative as you say, there really is no good method within AskMe to determine reliability.
In contrast, I firmly believe that competency can be relatively accurately evaluated comparatively. That comparative context is one provided by the larger web via search engines that is not provided within the relative isolation of AskMe.
This effect diminshes rapidly as the subject matter becomes more undefined and/or subjective. So, although Matt has put the emphasis on more practical, definitively answerable questions, it may well be that those are exactly the questions that AskMe is least equipped to reliably answer.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:44 AM on February 22, 2005
I agree, but I'm asserting something a bit more far-reaching: none of us are competent at very accurately evaluating our own competency (unless, apparently, we're very depressed) and so given that many AskMe answers stand on their own, and seem authoritative as you say, there really is no good method within AskMe to determine reliability.
In contrast, I firmly believe that competency can be relatively accurately evaluated comparatively. That comparative context is one provided by the larger web via search engines that is not provided within the relative isolation of AskMe.
This effect diminshes rapidly as the subject matter becomes more undefined and/or subjective. So, although Matt has put the emphasis on more practical, definitively answerable questions, it may well be that those are exactly the questions that AskMe is least equipped to reliably answer.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:44 AM on February 22, 2005
I see all the time answers that make authorative declarations yet are from posters that are rather clearly uninformed or uneducated about the subject
Me too, and it drives me nuts. People, if you don't know the answer, it's not helpful to make a wild guess! Just wait for someone with actual information to come along.
posted by languagehat at 12:00 PM on February 22, 2005
Me too, and it drives me nuts. People, if you don't know the answer, it's not helpful to make a wild guess! Just wait for someone with actual information to come along.
posted by languagehat at 12:00 PM on February 22, 2005
in these situations I usually hold my tongue because i don't have the time to get in a disagreement with someone
If you have the time, please speak up, even if only to suggest an alternate source or other information. Answers from people who have first-hand knowledge are often (most of the time? usually?) very helpful.
As someone who recommended a book that was of dubious value in an AxMe thread, I can say that the self-policing system seems to work well. Subsequent posters pointed out the book was not a good choice and explained why (politely too!). I have been much more careful when answering questions, only recommending books that I have read or noting that the book may be appropriate but that I have not read it.
posted by mlis at 12:12 PM on February 22, 2005
If you have the time, please speak up, even if only to suggest an alternate source or other information. Answers from people who have first-hand knowledge are often (most of the time? usually?) very helpful.
As someone who recommended a book that was of dubious value in an AxMe thread, I can say that the self-policing system seems to work well. Subsequent posters pointed out the book was not a good choice and explained why (politely too!). I have been much more careful when answering questions, only recommending books that I have read or noting that the book may be appropriate but that I have not read it.
posted by mlis at 12:12 PM on February 22, 2005
Flagging a question because you think it could be easily answered by using a search engine is, in effect, saying "this is a stupid question." Why is it a crime to ask such a question? If we were all expert googlers, and had infinite time, there would be no need for AskMe at all. We aren't, and we don't.
We interpret it very differently, then. Flagging a question I think could easily be answered by a search engine ("What is the capital of Zambia?") indicates just that: that it could easily be answered by a search engine, and AskMe's rules state that you should Google first. It is a "crime" to ask such a question because it's against the rules...which is essentially the definition of a crime. And if we were all expert Googlers, and had infinite time, we wouldn't need AskMe at all (perhaps. Personally I disagree), but that isn't the topic at hand. If we all know what Google is and can form the simplest of queries (that is, for the most part: If all of us know as much about searching on Google as our parents or grandparents), then there would be (and is) no need for easily searchable answers.
It seems some people are taking the slippery slope approach to the topic: If a question being easily searchable is against the rules, then a question being searchable at all is against the rules. I certainly don't interpret it that way, and I don't see a slope, just a little haziness on the border. There are very, very few easily Googled questions on AskMe. Very few. The ones that are there are breaking the rules. That's bad. But it certainly doesn't indicate that most AskMe questions are breaking the rules because they are Googlable with expert Google-fu and infinite time. We're not discussing that end of the spectrum at all.
posted by Bugbread at 2:07 PM on February 22, 2005
We interpret it very differently, then. Flagging a question I think could easily be answered by a search engine ("What is the capital of Zambia?") indicates just that: that it could easily be answered by a search engine, and AskMe's rules state that you should Google first. It is a "crime" to ask such a question because it's against the rules...which is essentially the definition of a crime. And if we were all expert Googlers, and had infinite time, we wouldn't need AskMe at all (perhaps. Personally I disagree), but that isn't the topic at hand. If we all know what Google is and can form the simplest of queries (that is, for the most part: If all of us know as much about searching on Google as our parents or grandparents), then there would be (and is) no need for easily searchable answers.
It seems some people are taking the slippery slope approach to the topic: If a question being easily searchable is against the rules, then a question being searchable at all is against the rules. I certainly don't interpret it that way, and I don't see a slope, just a little haziness on the border. There are very, very few easily Googled questions on AskMe. Very few. The ones that are there are breaking the rules. That's bad. But it certainly doesn't indicate that most AskMe questions are breaking the rules because they are Googlable with expert Google-fu and infinite time. We're not discussing that end of the spectrum at all.
posted by Bugbread at 2:07 PM on February 22, 2005
My parents have been online for almost five years and they still can't google worth a damn. The capital of Zambia would be too much for either of them.
posted by mischief at 3:18 PM on February 22, 2005
posted by mischief at 3:18 PM on February 22, 2005
It seems some people are taking the slippery slope approach to the topic: If a question being easily searchable is against the rules, then a question being searchable at all is against the rules.
Thanks for that, bugbread. Obviously, superior google-fu is one of the community elements that makes AskMe as useful as it is; only a fool would deny that. But damn, at least *try* a Google before you ask something, and use the info you gain to fine-tune the question you're asking. Duh. The AskMe guidelines couldn't be more clear on that.
mischief: unless you're asserting that asking for help finding the capital of Zambia is an appropriate use of AskMe, your last post doesn't seem to have a point.
posted by mediareport at 7:55 PM on February 22, 2005
Thanks for that, bugbread. Obviously, superior google-fu is one of the community elements that makes AskMe as useful as it is; only a fool would deny that. But damn, at least *try* a Google before you ask something, and use the info you gain to fine-tune the question you're asking. Duh. The AskMe guidelines couldn't be more clear on that.
mischief: unless you're asserting that asking for help finding the capital of Zambia is an appropriate use of AskMe, your last post doesn't seem to have a point.
posted by mediareport at 7:55 PM on February 22, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by xmutex at 7:54 PM on February 20, 2005