Content positioning
The behavior of people is context-sensitive - we behave differently depending on the environment, the surrounding community with its characteristic behavioral stereotypes and cultural traditions, and on its role at each point in time. For example, in conversations "in the kitchen" expressions and assessments may be used, markedly different from conversations on the same topic "in public places". This pattern of behavior is habitually transferred to the Internet space - people can lead to non-binding chatter in a forum or blog, but in places such as media (including social) or any kind of authoritative sites that imply the author’s official and thoughtful position, or projects such as Prozy.ru, oriented to the "netlenku", the authors really try to express themselves more accurately and give something in their opinion of quality. Including comply with the requirements of the legislation, for example, on non-firing of national discord, propaganda of extremism, non-insulting the honor and dignity of individuals and so on. In other words, context-sensitive behavior of people projected on the Internet actually means the dependence of content positioning on the positioning of services containing this content.
However, in real life, access to information expressed in the kitchen is much more limited than to information expressed in public places. And on the Internet, most materials are stored and equally accessible, regardless of the cultural context. And formally equally subject to the law. Such a formal approach gives rise to a conflict with established mass practice, from which Gleb Pavlovsky concluded that there are peculiarities of the Russian-language Internet, in which it is not customary to answer for “words”. There is nothing you can do with formal legislation, except for very energy-intensive and inertial procedures for changing it. Given the speed of web evolution, it may turn out to be completely (not) funny - the laws will start to become obsolete by the time they are adopted. You can deploy a public discussion about this. For example, to officially recognize the dependence of the responsibility of authors on the declared positioning of an Internet resource. Or associate a measure of responsibility with the composition of the audience. Write, for example, at the entrance “attention, the site contains materials that can offend the religious (political) feelings of Muslims (Orthodox, WWII veterans, ...)”. And let the Muslims (Orthodox, veterans, ...) decide for themselves whether to go to such a site or not.
Accurate positioning of the services in which the author's content is placed helps to ease the severity of socio-legal conflicts. But the positioning of content goes beyond the outlined issues, this is a more extensive and interesting topic. Positioning is contained in the very nature of human thinking, language, communication - we explicitly or implicitly give a certain status to what we say. A person’s speech usually contains at the same time a whole set of positioning related by different relations: argument, thesis, consideration, opinion, assessment, comment, question, summary (the list is probably not complete. Besides, the “logical” aspects are listed here, but you can add emotional: threat, regret, compliment, etc.) As a rule, these are small forms; some of them are close in meaning and convey only its different shades. The presence of a printed word increases both the species (genre) variety of positioning and the variety of their scales: miniature, story, article, book, review, interview, investigation, humor, banter, pathos, etc. Explicit indication of the positioning of a text object in a certain way adjusts our perception, even outside the specific context.
')
The most interesting thing about positioning, in my opinion, is that they can give different “weight” to the content. For example, in a broad public debate on any issue there may be millions of opinions, comments on opinions and opinions about comments. Of course, most of these opinions can be grouped into a small number of groups, where in each group there are almost no differences between opinions. But the positioning of an opinion itself does not imply its obligatory argumentation and can only express the author’s emotional attitude without any justification. With comments in general the same. Therefore, the weight of opinion is the lowest; it can be increased only by the authority of its carrier. Another thing is the argument. In any discussion there is not a lot of them, most often there are only a few of them. The weight of the argument is high, but this form is too short and usually cannot exhaust the topic. I would say that the highest weight of a resume is that it summarizes all the existing arguments or even the lack thereof. Another rather “weighty” positioning of the thesis. Although he, like the opinion, does not necessarily imply a justification, but implies a claim for some value. This is quite an author's format, because the value claim is often associated with a claim to the public recognition of the author.
Usually in discussions both in the “real” and on various Internet sites, all these positioning are mixed, which, first, results in a sort of weight leveling effect: a large number of opinions are beginning to be perceived as close in quality to the arguments. Secondly, multiple repetitions and duplications occur. Of course, the overall effectiveness of discussions is significantly reduced. It seems that the situation can improve 1) division into precisely positioned content units, 2) systematization of these units (or, perhaps, better to say filtering). The only question is, at the expense of what and within the framework of which service it can be done. My proposal, as usual, is in the model “objects + connections” [1] , [2] . In such an environment, content positioning is not related to service positioning - any content unit (including a text object) is a popular spherical horse in a vacuum until 1) the type of the object is defined (in this case, its positioning), 2) context is not defined by the author through links to other objects. And filtering by type trust people, stimulating them in any way (a separate topic). Now you can designate only a general principle - to stimulate more of those who, from a mass of opinions, single out and retain arguments on the topic, and even more of those who issue a resume. Accordingly, to build a hierarchy of user attention - in the top to keep a summary, then the arguments on the topic, then the views (listing schematic and conditional).
Separation into formats can be useful in another way. In another note, I slightly touched the topic of scientific articles - in science there is a strict filtering by quality, it turns out to be a “high step” - articles are either published immediately on the current world level, or are not published at all. This stimulates a team game and, indeed, most of the articles (I think, I don’t know the statistics) are co-authored. For beginning scientists, this is often the only way. And often there is a separation of roles: an idea from a more experienced one, a performance from a beginner. As for the exact sciences, an idea is actually a thesis that needs to be checked in experiment, calculations, and calculations. And the thesis, we remember, is the author's thing. The real situation is when not all ideas are tested. At the same time, they are often forgotten and lost in a large amount of other information. And then someone does the reinvention and embodies in one form or another. The original authors rather lose on this in terms of public recognition (the fact of losing / forgetting the potentially useful is also sad). But if the thesis format will be positioned as a separate, significant, authoring unit of content and it will be fixed in the public consciousness, just as the format of a scientific article was once fixed, the situation will improve, I suppose. The Internet allows you to experiment with new forms, and even have a trend for small formats. Any kind of mass service like Twitter actually does this — it reinforces a new communication format in the public mind. Moreover, there is a category of authors predisposed to give a lot of ideas, but not located to embody them. The same can be said about startups - there are many ideas expressed, but not all authors intend or can bring them to realization. (By the way, it may be better to position it this way - “idea.” The thesis does not always have the same meaning).
However, in real life, access to information expressed in the kitchen is much more limited than to information expressed in public places. And on the Internet, most materials are stored and equally accessible, regardless of the cultural context. And formally equally subject to the law. Such a formal approach gives rise to a conflict with established mass practice, from which Gleb Pavlovsky concluded that there are peculiarities of the Russian-language Internet, in which it is not customary to answer for “words”. There is nothing you can do with formal legislation, except for very energy-intensive and inertial procedures for changing it. Given the speed of web evolution, it may turn out to be completely (not) funny - the laws will start to become obsolete by the time they are adopted. You can deploy a public discussion about this. For example, to officially recognize the dependence of the responsibility of authors on the declared positioning of an Internet resource. Or associate a measure of responsibility with the composition of the audience. Write, for example, at the entrance “attention, the site contains materials that can offend the religious (political) feelings of Muslims (Orthodox, WWII veterans, ...)”. And let the Muslims (Orthodox, veterans, ...) decide for themselves whether to go to such a site or not.
Accurate positioning of the services in which the author's content is placed helps to ease the severity of socio-legal conflicts. But the positioning of content goes beyond the outlined issues, this is a more extensive and interesting topic. Positioning is contained in the very nature of human thinking, language, communication - we explicitly or implicitly give a certain status to what we say. A person’s speech usually contains at the same time a whole set of positioning related by different relations: argument, thesis, consideration, opinion, assessment, comment, question, summary (the list is probably not complete. Besides, the “logical” aspects are listed here, but you can add emotional: threat, regret, compliment, etc.) As a rule, these are small forms; some of them are close in meaning and convey only its different shades. The presence of a printed word increases both the species (genre) variety of positioning and the variety of their scales: miniature, story, article, book, review, interview, investigation, humor, banter, pathos, etc. Explicit indication of the positioning of a text object in a certain way adjusts our perception, even outside the specific context.
')
The most interesting thing about positioning, in my opinion, is that they can give different “weight” to the content. For example, in a broad public debate on any issue there may be millions of opinions, comments on opinions and opinions about comments. Of course, most of these opinions can be grouped into a small number of groups, where in each group there are almost no differences between opinions. But the positioning of an opinion itself does not imply its obligatory argumentation and can only express the author’s emotional attitude without any justification. With comments in general the same. Therefore, the weight of opinion is the lowest; it can be increased only by the authority of its carrier. Another thing is the argument. In any discussion there is not a lot of them, most often there are only a few of them. The weight of the argument is high, but this form is too short and usually cannot exhaust the topic. I would say that the highest weight of a resume is that it summarizes all the existing arguments or even the lack thereof. Another rather “weighty” positioning of the thesis. Although he, like the opinion, does not necessarily imply a justification, but implies a claim for some value. This is quite an author's format, because the value claim is often associated with a claim to the public recognition of the author.
Usually in discussions both in the “real” and on various Internet sites, all these positioning are mixed, which, first, results in a sort of weight leveling effect: a large number of opinions are beginning to be perceived as close in quality to the arguments. Secondly, multiple repetitions and duplications occur. Of course, the overall effectiveness of discussions is significantly reduced. It seems that the situation can improve 1) division into precisely positioned content units, 2) systematization of these units (or, perhaps, better to say filtering). The only question is, at the expense of what and within the framework of which service it can be done. My proposal, as usual, is in the model “objects + connections” [1] , [2] . In such an environment, content positioning is not related to service positioning - any content unit (including a text object) is a popular spherical horse in a vacuum until 1) the type of the object is defined (in this case, its positioning), 2) context is not defined by the author through links to other objects. And filtering by type trust people, stimulating them in any way (a separate topic). Now you can designate only a general principle - to stimulate more of those who, from a mass of opinions, single out and retain arguments on the topic, and even more of those who issue a resume. Accordingly, to build a hierarchy of user attention - in the top to keep a summary, then the arguments on the topic, then the views (listing schematic and conditional).
Separation into formats can be useful in another way. In another note, I slightly touched the topic of scientific articles - in science there is a strict filtering by quality, it turns out to be a “high step” - articles are either published immediately on the current world level, or are not published at all. This stimulates a team game and, indeed, most of the articles (I think, I don’t know the statistics) are co-authored. For beginning scientists, this is often the only way. And often there is a separation of roles: an idea from a more experienced one, a performance from a beginner. As for the exact sciences, an idea is actually a thesis that needs to be checked in experiment, calculations, and calculations. And the thesis, we remember, is the author's thing. The real situation is when not all ideas are tested. At the same time, they are often forgotten and lost in a large amount of other information. And then someone does the reinvention and embodies in one form or another. The original authors rather lose on this in terms of public recognition (the fact of losing / forgetting the potentially useful is also sad). But if the thesis format will be positioned as a separate, significant, authoring unit of content and it will be fixed in the public consciousness, just as the format of a scientific article was once fixed, the situation will improve, I suppose. The Internet allows you to experiment with new forms, and even have a trend for small formats. Any kind of mass service like Twitter actually does this — it reinforces a new communication format in the public mind. Moreover, there is a category of authors predisposed to give a lot of ideas, but not located to embody them. The same can be said about startups - there are many ideas expressed, but not all authors intend or can bring them to realization. (By the way, it may be better to position it this way - “idea.” The thesis does not always have the same meaning).
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/63960/
All Articles