Question-answer systems - a phenomenon, a paradox or an indicator of degeneration of the audience?
Not so long ago, I discovered for myself that Question-answer resources that allow users to ask questions and answer other people's questions are becoming more and more popular. Sometimes this translates into lengthy discussions, but it still has a fundamental difference from forums designed to provide just communication.
I myself occasionally look at the resource under the name otvety.google.com and the situation in it doesn’t fit in my head.
Firstly, the answers to a huge number of questions appearing on the service can be found in the same Google. And I could still understand the problem when it is difficult for a person to formulate his own question and for this purpose (for a clearer formulation of the question in the process of discussion) he is submitted for public discussion in a “raw” form. However, it is often enough to “feed” Google the text of the question “as is” in order to get the right answer in the very first lines.
')
Secondly, the freedom of registration, the absence of pre-moderation and the “guest account” give rise to entire deposits of trolls. They ask and answer.
Thirdly, many people really try to answer the questions posed logically and correctly, even if this question is the only meaningful one among hundreds of people around.
Attention, the question: what do people want there? Why do questioners go there? What and to whom do the “experts” want to prove, except for how to measure ratings?
PS: Regarding the name of the topic ... Most likely, such systems are both a phenomenon (more than a good idea, out of the general range) and an indicator of degeneration of the audience (90% of the content is a wild dump) and a paradox (despite the trash there many sensible people hang out (judging by the answers) people) in one person.
I myself occasionally look at the resource under the name otvety.google.com and the situation in it doesn’t fit in my head.
Firstly, the answers to a huge number of questions appearing on the service can be found in the same Google. And I could still understand the problem when it is difficult for a person to formulate his own question and for this purpose (for a clearer formulation of the question in the process of discussion) he is submitted for public discussion in a “raw” form. However, it is often enough to “feed” Google the text of the question “as is” in order to get the right answer in the very first lines.
')
Secondly, the freedom of registration, the absence of pre-moderation and the “guest account” give rise to entire deposits of trolls. They ask and answer.
Thirdly, many people really try to answer the questions posed logically and correctly, even if this question is the only meaningful one among hundreds of people around.
Attention, the question: what do people want there? Why do questioners go there? What and to whom do the “experts” want to prove, except for how to measure ratings?
PS: Regarding the name of the topic ... Most likely, such systems are both a phenomenon (more than a good idea, out of the general range) and an indicator of degeneration of the audience (90% of the content is a wild dump) and a paradox (despite the trash there many sensible people hang out (judging by the answers) people) in one person.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/51893/
All Articles