This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The 'problem' is that anyone can still publish a webpage containing any content they want. Google will dutifully index the site as we would want it to.
If a given site becomes extremely popular due to it's content, more people will be Googling it. Which will inspire others to publish webpages that might show up in Google searches for that popular site.
And since anyone can publish whatever content they want, they can publish sites that are specifically designed to show up in search results for that site, with 'content' that is actually geared towards getting Google to index the site alongside the popular stuff. Used to be that a site would straight-up copy the popular site's content. Now it just has to match it's profile in the search index, which usually means including the right terms or whatever.
Sure, Google could take some efforts to intentionally punish sites that it seems are using tactics to game their search algo, but how do they actually determine good faith actors just publishing content that people want to see and 'bad faith' actors publishing content solely designed to bump it up the rankings? How does that line get drawn?
And how do you scale your solution? And How do you respond to those complaining of unfair enforcement? Is google going to start walling off parts of the internet from it's own search engine?
I don't think Google is interested in building it's own enforcement wing (which would then itself be gamed) for this purpose.
And being clear, I think Google is still pretty good at finding certain things. Usually esoteric scientific research or specific historical information which is often uses complex, not-often-searched terms.
But as you note, divining the user's 'intent' doesn't seem to be it's forte. You have to explain what you're seeking slowly and in simple language and possibly rephrase yourself a few times before it "gets it." Its like having an old friend who is slowly giving in to dementia as they age, and is still able to recall in great detail information about topics on which they were once experts, but goes off on weird tangents when you ask them about basic facts about the world or try to get them to remember some particular event from their past.
More options
Context Copy link