|Issue with Google forums|
This isn't a personal attack but more a general comment. I see the google main forum as, post your problem, get problems solved. It's hard to argue with success. On the other hand you lose people along the way. I'm one of them. Frankly I'm nothing and a nobody. You can scrutinize threads, you can delete comments, you can opt not to publish threads because it's too negative, you can remove threads and that's fine and dandy. Hard to argue with the forums success. Something must be working.
What I cannot deal with is the bias. You can't argue with success and helpfulness of that forum. On a problem solving basis, great. If you want to participate in discussion, then enjoy a conversation amongst yourselves. I hold my words in high regard. I'm sure everyone does.
I'm usually spot on with my read on people. I know that as is, I'm done with that forum. It's more sterile than an operating room. That works as I'm sure the number don't lie. So obviously it's me, not the forum itself. Part of me says actually I'm right.
I'll leave it at that. As a customer might do, I'm leaving feedback. If you lose balance, if you lose reality, then you lose credibility. If you can't handle what the reality is because it doesn't fit into your ideal, then look into that. If we can't call a spade a spade, then what's the real issue? I would suggest though that everything is not as transparent as it might be.
Like Google says, another search engine is just a click away. So in that regard, I'm sure the concern about my concerns will fall on deaf ears in that way.
|I'm sure the concern about my concerns will fall on deaf ears in that way. |
Not at all.
Thanks for the feedback, it IS appreciated.
I know that the volunteers that help make that forum are highly passionate about keeping the signal quality up.
As humans, we all make mistooks. ;) I'm sure the Moderator team there will be just as interested in your comments as I am, and will want to make the forum better. Without feedback, that can't be done.
There is a line where quality control becomes something entirely different. Depending on how a newspaper edits their stories and editorials, you may not be getting an accurate view or a view that is shared by the public. In a sense, a highly edited newspaper loses credibility when the readers become aware of the level of editing that happens at that particular newspaper. If people are unaware then they simply move forward in ignorance. So if there are 10 or 15 anti government editorials written, yet 5 pro and 5 anti are printed, one might think that everyone is pretty content. Is the balance of coverage accurate or is it manipulated?