Thanks for the welcome and responses. Is it fair to say that the more senior/founding members are a bit keener on the expert forums than the more junior/general members?
Are long threads viable repositories of knowledge? They have little structure making them difficult to browse and search and they usually contain large amounts of noise which hinders the activities.
What does an expert get out of the process? As has been mentioned, marketing for their products and services is an important and probably dominant reason in many instances. Many would judge this a reasonable price to pay to access expertise and I would generally agree. However, if you are a non-expert I would suggest you are not in good position to distinguish neutrality from effective marketing.
By successful I meant both the experts and the members getting sufficient out of a two way dialogue for it to continue rather than peter out or one side absent themselves. Is there a pattern to the expert forums that have been successful and those that have been less so?
- Is it even possible to be an expert (or is it all a matter of opinion)?
- If so, in what areas of the audio hobby is it possible to be an expert?
- How does one become an expert?
Technical/scientific experts become so by mastering the technical/scientific knowledge in their area. This involves understanding how parts of knowledge build on other parts in order to spot the gaps that need filling. Since all scientific knowledge has to predict the outcome of experiments perhaps the key to recognizing a technical expert is that they can tell you what will happen and give simple understandable reasons why.
Expertise that is not based on scientific reasoning is a lot less straightforward to recognise or even accept for some. This is particularly so if the subject area gives the appearance of being scientific/technical. A good non-audiophile example here would be homeopathy.
What makes expertise interesting in the home audio area is the strong shift away from a scientific or technical basis after the end of the stereo boom. For example, what does it involve to be an expert in audiophile cables?
- How frequently is the expert correct?
- How frequently is the expert wrong?
It depends on your belief system and the subject area of the expert. To continue the audiophile cable example, to some such an expert would be considered a rogue or nutter and to be wrong or irrelevant all the time but to others the expertise would be accepted and often followed.
- What are the blind spots of the expert?
This is obviously going to vary from expert to expert. A common one for the experts from the scientific/technical side is to consider audiophile beliefs that are wrong in a scientific sense to be bad. And on the other side, the most obvious blind spot for those that genuinely hold invalid scientific beliefs (rather than just claim to hold them in order to shift expensive luxury hardware) is that the established scientific knowledge might be right.
Are long threads viable repositories of knowledge? They have little structure making them difficult to browse and search and they usually contain large amounts of noise which hinders the activities.
What does an expert get out of the process? As has been mentioned, marketing for their products and services is an important and probably dominant reason in many instances. Many would judge this a reasonable price to pay to access expertise and I would generally agree. However, if you are a non-expert I would suggest you are not in good position to distinguish neutrality from effective marketing.
By successful I meant both the experts and the members getting sufficient out of a two way dialogue for it to continue rather than peter out or one side absent themselves. Is there a pattern to the expert forums that have been successful and those that have been less so?
- Is it even possible to be an expert (or is it all a matter of opinion)?
- If so, in what areas of the audio hobby is it possible to be an expert?
- How does one become an expert?
Technical/scientific experts become so by mastering the technical/scientific knowledge in their area. This involves understanding how parts of knowledge build on other parts in order to spot the gaps that need filling. Since all scientific knowledge has to predict the outcome of experiments perhaps the key to recognizing a technical expert is that they can tell you what will happen and give simple understandable reasons why.
Expertise that is not based on scientific reasoning is a lot less straightforward to recognise or even accept for some. This is particularly so if the subject area gives the appearance of being scientific/technical. A good non-audiophile example here would be homeopathy.
What makes expertise interesting in the home audio area is the strong shift away from a scientific or technical basis after the end of the stereo boom. For example, what does it involve to be an expert in audiophile cables?
- How frequently is the expert correct?
- How frequently is the expert wrong?
It depends on your belief system and the subject area of the expert. To continue the audiophile cable example, to some such an expert would be considered a rogue or nutter and to be wrong or irrelevant all the time but to others the expertise would be accepted and often followed.
- What are the blind spots of the expert?
This is obviously going to vary from expert to expert. A common one for the experts from the scientific/technical side is to consider audiophile beliefs that are wrong in a scientific sense to be bad. And on the other side, the most obvious blind spot for those that genuinely hold invalid scientific beliefs (rather than just claim to hold them in order to shift expensive luxury hardware) is that the established scientific knowledge might be right.