Googling something is probably the most efficient way to find an answer, in the same way that flavorless nutrient shakes are probably the most efficient way to fuel your body. Asking questions and conversing about the answers is fun. It's madness to abandon an entire genre of human conversation just because some search engine exists.
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
29 points (100.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
29707 readers
1270 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If every time a person has a question, it has to be re-answered, it's vastly less efficient than having it be answered once and then have people just Google for it. When I answer a question, I want it to benefit not just one random person but all the future people who can find it via searching.
I understand the people who object to people being rude about it, but not with the people saying that they should not be expected to at least search -- a small expenditure of their time -- before asking other people to spend their time fixing the first person's problem.
It takes you seconds to hit Google. If you broadcast that question to a forum, maybe thousands or tens of thousands or even millions of people read your question. Then they donate their time to try to solve your issue, and multiple people may spend time on it. It almost certainly takes more time per individual to craft a good answer than it takes the asker to perform a search. That is asking for a big chunk of time from people who are trying to donate their time to help others. Their time is much more limited than Google search cycles.
Common courtesy is to search first. If that doesn't solve it, then ask.
>google question >reddit thread with exact question as title >one comment >”just google it”
I feel "just fucking google it" culture is toxic and driver away new users on a lot of discussion boards.
Dumb questions that could be easily answered with a search engine or AI are not my idea of ideal discussion and I don't see a point to retaining it. "Noob questions" are fine, using a discussion board as a first resource for a basic question is not.
I agree to an extent. I feel discussions have lost depth online. Since most of the time online users don't have the same caliber as one may be more used to in the 2010 and prior era of the internet. I feel, on sites like Reddit, i leave discussions feeling more confused and/or exhausted rather than enlightened.
It really really depends.
"What time does ASDA shut?" - well the answer involves someone in the comment section googling it, I can see the "just Google it" frustration.
But
"Why is the bottom of my 3D print really messy?" - anyone who could claim to be intermediate at 3D printing would know that it is either a support material issue, or maybe they haven't got "bridging" settings turned on. Replying with "a simple Google would find it was an issue with bridging" but the person asking the question may not even know that phrase to use.
Edit: I like to do the old "this is what i think it is, but here are some terms you could use to better understand in case my solution doesn't work"
That second scenario you've described is why I loathe this "just fucking google it" mantra.
Searching for stuff needs some amount of information to begin with. You need to know what search terms to use, which means you have to know something about the problem you're trying to solve. And a lot of times, that is precisely the problem: not knowing what even to include in the search query. With a human on the other side of the tube, it's something that could easily be remedied with a few follow-up questions, but a search engine can't do that--nor do you want for it to do that.
EDIT: Clarified things.
Changed "And a lot of times, that is precisely the problem: not knowing how to formulate the search query" to "And a lot of times, that is precisely the problem: not knowing what even to include in the search query."
The trouble with google search these days is...
Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you have a question that you need answered, but don't know the answer to? Everyone runs into this issue from time to time, but fortunately there is a simple solution. By using google search to find your answer, you will be both satisfied and educated by the result! People across the world use this simple tool every day to find answers to a wide variety of questions.
Then after 2+ paragraphs of that you're lucky if there's an answer at all, not to mention a correct one.
There are lots of benefits to lurking. Nobody jumps on you with pedantic bull crap. Nobody tells you to just Google it. Nobody picks at every god damn little picky thing you say. Nobody bothers you. It's a wonder anybody bothers to post or comment at all. Life is more peaceful for lurkers.
Something I've noticed as I've shifted more of my conversations from Reddit to Discord (even before the garbage fire over at the site) is that I'm not looking up stuff as much during instant, short-form communication. Just casual conversation really is okay sometimes. I'll be trying to keep that in mind as I spend more time on Reddit alternatives.
I also have a theory that message board conversations spend as much time on opinion as they do because all the little shit has been solved now that we have esoteric information at our fingertips. Some people don't even know what it was like to be sitting around with friends all trying to figure out what 80's film you saw Robert Loggia in because you couldn't just look it up on-demand.
There are some things you cannot simply "google". As a straight man, define "queer" to me about 5 to 10 years ago. I was on a dating sight and decent amount of women were putting this in their profile. I asked politely. Let me tell ya, it wasn't a polite response.
Why are questions all of a sudden insults when the person may actually be ignorant and trying to educate themselves?
It's because there are a great deal of people who will waste others' time by trolling. There are many communities who have to endure people constantly asking folks to validate why they deserve to exist. Then to those folks there could be a few who may actually be open to conversation but it's like mining the spam folder for honest messages. If at 10k ft it looks like it could be trolling it's best for their mental health to just let the folder do what the folder does.
Or, you know, maybe some people are assholes and we should not always look for excuses for them?
You put it on your profile on a dating site, so you should be OK with this as a conversation starter.
For example, I do not wear a Nirvana t-shirt in public because I don't want some teenagers asking me if I know this great song "Smells Like Teen Spirit".
Don't ask a question, post a wrong answer to the question you have.
That'll give you many answers.
Of course you can always start by RTFM you lazy sod.
IF your post doesn't get deletet for being obviously wrong. You need a little bit of knowlege in the field your asking in for this method in my experience.
I always try to answer even though I know the answer is on Google.
Either because it may be a more up-to-date version or because you simply never know when other websites will stop being available and therefore that source of information will be lost. Also because many times no matter how hard one searches before asking, sometimes we do not know the concepts we want to reach and our search is limited.
Imagine if everyone responded with "Just Google It", we would never find an answer to anything.
I really hate that mantra and it should be part of "If you don't have anything to contribute, don't comment."
this is how it should be dealt with!
thank you 🧡
This is so true, I haven't asked question on stack overflow for a long time because often I find the answer by myself or by googling it. On rare occasions I asked it gets closed as duplicate of barely related question that doesn't answer my question or I get no answers.
Or the only person that answers your question gets heavily downvoted.
Maybe. It does bother me when I see people complain about posts where the person asks a really basic question and someone gives a few words in snide response like, "Google much?" and don't actually answer the question. At the same time, some questions being asked could honestly be answered with a simple Google search, I just don't know what the cutoff is. Sometimes you can get better responses in the comments than you would with a Google search, or the Google searches themselves will just turn up Reddit comments where somebody else asked the same question once upon a time. I think it does help to refresh the information sometimes, rather than just relying on Google Searches for information, sometimes you get actual real-world experts chiming in like, "Yeah, everybody thinks it's A, but actually it's B because of X, Y, and Z, it's a common mistake that alot of people make." So I'll usually err on the side of just let ask whatever they want to, no matter how basic a question.
Even with ready access to Google, I still try to ask questions about people's beliefs/lifestyles/hobbies/etc. It's a mixed bag with the responses I get. Some folks are very passionate and ready to explain the subject. Others just tell you to Google it. I obviously know I can Google it, but was hoping for human interaction with someone who clearly has an interest in the topic. Maybe some bonding, maybe some learning, maybe give that person a second to nerd out.
The problem with this mantra for me is that in a discussion, I don't want to know what website x thinks the definition or answer is, I want to know what you think it is. If the term/issue is uncontroversial then googling is fine, but if it's vague, confusing or has different interpretations, Google could make things worse.
E.g. someone complains that cultural marxism is bringing down western civilization. I could Google this and find out it's an antisemitic conspiracy theory espoused by the Nazis and now the American right. But will this definition help me understand the person I'm talking to and what they mean? Will it help the conversation? Absolutely not.
But if I asked, "what do you mean by that" nd the person responded, e.g. "how the left is pushing diversity in society against the will of ordinary people" (or whatever), then we can have an actual conversation about what is bothering this person.
And another problem with it is it prevents talking.
Some anthropologists liken human speech to chimpanzee grooming. To bond, a chimpanzee will sit there and pick through another chimpanzee’s back hair. Time spent doing this builds a bond between them.
Conversation works that way for humans. It’s just an instinctual emotional need: to put energy into activities that create bonds with other people.
I’m autistic, and learning the above was a sort of breakthrough moment for me in terms of respecting small talk, respecting the real value of a conversation even when there’s no practical need for knowledge transfer.
Of course, I’d rather bond by snuggling because it low-key hurts to talk, but our culture really only permits that with animals, lovers, and family.
Incidentally, that connects with another interesting fact about the Dunbar number.
As some may know that’s the number of people who can live in a tribe or community where everyone’s brain still has the capacity to remember (a) how they feel about each other person and (b) how each other person feels about each other person.
It’s about 120 individuals, for humans. Once it gets beyond 120 people, you start encountering “strangers”. People you might have seen, but you don’t know who they’re tight with, what they’re up to.
For chimps it’s 40 individuals. Chimps can’t keep track of more than 40 nodes in an interrelationship graph of relationships.
So 120 and 40. It’s a ratio of three. Some speculate this ratio is because chimps’ bonding behavior permits bonding with one other individual at a time, and humans’ bonding behavior permits bonding with three individuals at a time.
For chimps, that’s grooming. You can groom one other chimp’s back at a time, allowing you to bond with one other chimp.
With humans it’s talking. So why three people? (This is where it gets really interesting, at least for me.) It’s three people because when one person is speaking to three or fewer people, it’s intimate enough to be a bonding experience. And when a person is speaking to four or more people, it doesn’t feel intimate enough to be a bonding experience.
The really fun part is you can see this happening at social gatherings. Because one speaker can engage three listeners while maintaining intimacy, this means conversations can be two to four people. As soon as a fifth person walks up, beer in hand, to join the conversation, it will split into two conversations. You’ll have a 2 and a 3, instead of one big 5.
Or, if the conversation does stay stable at 5 people, it morphs into more of a “presentation” that separates the group into speakers and audience, and that’s not a bonding experience.
At most social gatherings, people want to connect, so instead of that switch to audience mode the conversation will split when it reaches 5, into separate 2- and 3-person conversations.
So the other problem with the google mantra is it removes an excuse to talk from society, and we need excuses to verbalize at each other so we don’t feel alienated. Asking for directions, bumming a cigarette, talking about the weather or sports, saying good morning and how-are-you-im-fine and hello, these are all cultural scaffolds that make excuses to hear each other’s voices.
And asking for basic info is part of that. In conversations, we get more things to say if we normalize asking for and providing basic background info. It helps people get their voices warmed up, to say things that aren’t that deep, to present easily-found knowledge, just warm up the vocal chords with the basic stuff.
Very insightful and not something I'd have thought of. A large part of me feels as though many of the issues of today can be blamed on the fact that nobody actually talks to eachother anymore. Socializing has been replaced with social media, where you see curated snapshots of your "friend's" lives which only show the good, and get invested in the curated snapshots of the lives of celebrities. You look at your friends and random celebrities doing things instead of doing them yourself or with your friends. And in turn, you post your own curated snapshots to make yourself look good and feel like you're participating, thus continuing the cycle.
This state of knowing only about the cool and fun things other people are doing while simultaneously never actually speaking to them causes you to feel left out because your life isn't anywhere near as fun as their lives look, and the fact that people tend to only post good looking pictures of themselves online makes you feel bad about your own appearance, because you don't look anywhere near as good as they make themselves look.
With how pervasive the atomization caused by the internet is, I should've known that even its greatest strength, its ability to deliver information, might have harmful side effects. Indeed, I wonder how many conversations I've not had the opportunity to partake in because I found what I wanted out of them on Google. Or books I haven't read because I got what I wanted out of them on Google. Convenient, for sure, but perhaps it takes a little bit of the joy out of finding new information, whether that joy comes from the other stuff you learn along the way or the human interaction which occurs in the process.
antisemitic conspiracy theory espoused by the Nazis and now the American right. But will this definition help me understand the person
Well... If you know where someone is getting their information, it actually does say a lot about a person.
When I run across an argument like that, I know to back out of it and reassess if it's worth it in the first place.