Return to Answer

As a counterpoint to Ninefingers's answer, I quote a much more recent post from Jeff, "The Trouble With Popularity":

Every minute spent participating in an entertaining ‘fun’ post is time that someone could have spent asking or answering a substantive question, something practical that solves an actual problem for hundreds or thousands of people. Entertainment, within reason, is by no means a bad thing — but I experience almost physical pain when I think about a brilliant topic expert spending 10 minutes on one of our sites deciding which hilarious cartoon is their favorite.

And a less recent, but oft-quoted piece by Robert Cartaino, "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective":

Most forums and chat rooms have a scale problem. As in, they don’t. The more people that join the discussion, the more noise each of those connections bring. So the forums get progressively noisier and noisier, and suddenly one day … you stop learning.

… eventually the experts (i.e. people who are teaching you stuff) get drowned out and you are left with an experience that looks more like the magazine rack at a grocery store than a book shelf at Harvard. — Robert Scoble

Because we believe so deeply in learning, we are willing to go to great lengths to suppress the discussion, debate, and opinions that — while plenty entertaining — cause most forums to inevitably break down.

And finally, to another piece by Robert Cartaino, "No Artificial Intelligence in Area 51":

Top blogs, best books, buying recommendations: those are not the hallmarks of expertise. They’re the seeds of the merely curious. A site filled with these sorts of idle, pedestrian questions will never attract the core of experts it needs to survive.

The reason I quote these things isn't to cherry-pick the places where the word "expert" is used over some other word, but to show that the usage of the word "expert" has been refined over the years. Ninefingers points out that your expert-level status is irrelevant, but that's a bit too simplistic: your expert-level status does matter. A whole lot. It's just that your expert-level status is determined not by your past experiences and certifications and degrees, but by the quality of the content you provide here.

Stack Exchange, I think, unapologetically favors experts: while newbies can get their questions answered, Stack Exchange is not a site for newbies and their facile questions. When there's a choice between doing something to cater to the newbies (and subsequently, a much larger audience) and doing something to cater to the topic/domain experts, the wind almost always breaks towards the experts.

As a counterpoint to Ninefingers's answer, I quote a much more recent post from Jeff, "The Trouble With Popularity":

Every minute spent participating in an entertaining ‘fun’ post is time that someone could have spent asking or answering a substantive question, something practical that solves an actual problem for hundreds or thousands of people. Entertainment, within reason, is by no means a bad thing — but I experience almost physical pain when I think about a brilliant topic expert spending 10 minutes on one of our sites deciding which hilarious cartoon is their favorite.

And a less recent, but oft-quoted piece by Robert Cartaino, "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective":

Most forums and chat rooms have a scale problem. As in, they don’t. The more people that join the discussion, the more noise each of those connections bring. So the forums get progressively noisier and noisier, and suddenly one day … you stop learning.

… eventually the experts (i.e. people who are teaching you stuff) get drowned out and you are left with an experience that looks more like the magazine rack at a grocery store than a book shelf at Harvard. — Robert Scoble

Because we believe so deeply in learning, we are willing to go to great lengths to suppress the discussion, debate, and opinions that — while plenty entertaining — cause most forums to inevitably break down.

And finally, to another piece by Robert Cartaino, "No Artificial Intelligence in Area 51":

Top blogs, best books, buying recommendations: those are not the hallmarks of expertise. They’re the seeds of the merely curious. A site filled with these sorts of idle, pedestrian questions will never attract the core of experts it needs to survive.

The reason I quote these things isn't to cherry-pick the places where the word "expert" is used over some other word, but to show that the usage of the word "expert" has been refined over the years. Ninefingers points out that your expert-level status is irrelevant, but that's a bit too simplistic: your expert-level status does matter. A whole lot. It's just that your expert-level status is determined not by your past experiences and certifications and degrees, but by the quality of the content you provide here.

Stack Exchange, I think, unapologetically favors experts: while newbies can get their questions answered, Stack Exchange is not a site for newbies and their facile questions. When there's a choice between doing something to cater to the newbies (and subsequently, a much larger audience) and doing something to cater to the topic/domain experts, the wind almost always breaks towards the experts.

As a counterpoint to Ninefingers's answer, I quote a much more recent post from Jeff, "The Trouble With Popularity":

Every minute spent participating in an entertaining ‘fun’ post is time that someone could have spent asking or answering a substantive question, something practical that solves an actual problem for hundreds or thousands of people. Entertainment, within reason, is by no means a bad thing — but I experience almost physical pain when I think about a brilliant topic expert spending 10 minutes on one of our sites deciding which hilarious cartoon is their favorite.

And a less recent, but oft-quoted piece by Robert Cartaino, "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective":

Most forums and chat rooms have a scale problem. As in, they don’t. The more people that join the discussion, the more noise each of those connections bring. So the forums get progressively noisier and noisier, and suddenly one day … you stop learning.

 

… eventually the experts (i.e. people who are teaching you stuff) get drowned out and you are left with an experience that looks more like the magazine rack at a grocery store than a book shelf at Harvard. — Robert Scoble

 

Because we believe so deeply in learning, we are willing to go to great lengths to suppress the discussion, debate, and opinions that — while plenty entertaining — cause most forums to inevitably break down.

And finally, to another piece by Robert Cartaino, "No Artificial Intelligence in Area 51":

Top blogs, best books, buying recommendations: those are not the hallmarks of expertise. They’re the seeds of the merely curious. A site filled with these sorts of idle, pedestrian questions will never attract the core of experts it needs to survive.

The reason I quote these things isn't to cherry-pick the places where the word "expert" is used over some other word, but to show that the usage of the word "expert" has been refined over the years. Ninefingers points out that your expert-level status is irrelevant, but that's a bit too simplistic: your expert-level status does matter. A whole lot. It's just that your expert-level status is determined not by your past experiences and certifications and degrees, but by the quality of the content you provide here.

Stack Exchange, I think, unapologetically favors experts: while newbies can get their questions answered, Stack Exchange is not a site for newbies and their facile questions. When there's a choice between doing something to cater to the newbies (and subsequently, a much larger audience) and doing something to cater to the topic/domain experts, the wind almost always breaks towards the experts.

As a counterpoint to Ninefingers's answer, I quote a much more recent post from Jeff, "The Trouble With Popularity":

Every minute spent participating in an entertaining ‘fun’ post is time that someone could have spent asking or answering a substantive question, something practical that solves an actual problem for hundreds or thousands of people. Entertainment, within reason, is by no means a bad thing — but I experience almost physical pain when I think about a brilliant topic expert spending 10 minutes on one of our sites deciding which hilarious cartoon is their favorite.

And a less recent, but oft-quoted piece by Robert Cartaino, "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective":

Most forums and chat rooms have a scale problem. As in, they don’t. The more people that join the discussion, the more noise each of those connections bring. So the forums get progressively noisier and noisier, and suddenly one day … you stop learning.

… eventually the experts (i.e. people who are teaching you stuff) get drowned out and you are left with an experience that looks more like the magazine rack at a grocery store than a book shelf at Harvard. — Robert Scoble

Because we believe so deeply in learning, we are willing to go to great lengths to suppress the discussion, debate, and opinions that — while plenty entertaining — cause most forums to inevitably break down.

And finally, to another piece by Robert Cartaino, "No Artificial Intelligence in Area 51":

Top blogs, best books, buying recommendations: those are not the hallmarks of expertise. They’re the seeds of the merely curious. A site filled with these sorts of idle, pedestrian questions will never attract the core of experts it needs to survive.

The reason I quote these things isn't to cherry-pick the places where the word "expert" is used over some other word, but to show that the usage of the word "expert" has been refined over the years. Ninefingers points out that your expert-level status is irrelevant, but that's a bit too simplistic: your expert-level status does matter. A whole lot. It's just that your expert-level status is determined not by your past experiences and certifications and degrees, but by the quality of the content you provide here.

Stack Exchange, I think, unapologetically favors experts: while newbies can get their questions answered, Stack Exchange is not a site for newbies and their facile questions. When there's a choice between doing something to cater to the newbies (and subsequently, a much larger audience) and doing something to cater to the topic/domain experts, the wind almost always breaks towards the experts.

As a counterpoint to Ninefingers's answer, I quote a much more recent post from Jeff, "The Trouble With Popularity":

Every minute spent participating in an entertaining ‘fun’ post is time that someone could have spent asking or answering a substantive question, something practical that solves an actual problem for hundreds or thousands of people. Entertainment, within reason, is by no means a bad thing — but I experience almost physical pain when I think about a brilliant topic expert spending 10 minutes on one of our sites deciding which hilarious cartoon is their favorite.

And a less recent, but oft-quoted piece by Robert Cartaino, "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective":

Most forums and chat rooms have a scale problem. As in, they don’t. The more people that join the discussion, the more noise each of those connections bring. So the forums get progressively noisier and noisier, and suddenly one day … you stop learning.

… eventually the experts (i.e. people who are teaching you stuff) get drowned out and you are left with an experience that looks more like the magazine rack at a grocery store than a book shelf at Harvard. — Robert Scoble

Because we believe so deeply in learning, we are willing to go to great lengths to suppress the discussion, debate, and opinions that — while plenty entertaining — cause most forums to inevitably break down.

And finally, to another piece by Robert Cartaino, "No Artificial Intelligence in Area 51":

Top blogs, best books, buying recommendations: those are not the hallmarks of expertise. They’re the seeds of the merely curious. A site filled with these sorts of idle, pedestrian questions will never attract the core of experts it needs to survive.

The reason I quote these things isn't to cherry-pick the places where the word "expert" is used over some other word, but to show that the usage of the word "expert" has been refined over the years. Ninefingers points out that your expert-level status is irrelevant, but that's a bit too simplistic: your expert-level status does matter. A whole lot. It's just that your expert-level status is determined not by your past experiences and certifications and degrees, but by the quality of the content you provide here.

Stack Exchange, I think, unapologetically favors experts: while newbies can get their questions answered, Stack Exchange is not a site for newbies and their facile questions. When there's a choice between doing something to cater to the newbies (and subsequently, a much larger audience) and doing something to cater to the topic/domain experts, the wind almost always breaks towards the experts.

As a counterpoint to Ninefingers's answer, I quote a much more recent post from Jeff, "The Trouble With Popularity":

Every minute spent participating in an entertaining ‘fun’ post is time that someone could have spent asking or answering a substantive question, something practical that solves an actual problem for hundreds or thousands of people. Entertainment, within reason, is by no means a bad thing — but I experience almost physical pain when I think about a brilliant topic expert spending 10 minutes on one of our sites deciding which hilarious cartoon is their favorite.

And a less recent, but oft-quoted piece by Robert Cartaino, "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective":

Most forums and chat rooms have a scale problem. As in, they don’t. The more people that join the discussion, the more noise each of those connections bring. So the forums get progressively noisier and noisier, and suddenly one day … you stop learning.

… eventually the experts (i.e. people who are teaching you stuff) get drowned out and you are left with an experience that looks more like the magazine rack at a grocery store than a book shelf at Harvard. — Robert Scoble

Because we believe so deeply in learning, we are willing to go to great lengths to suppress the discussion, debate, and opinions that — while plenty entertaining — cause most forums to inevitably break down.

And finally, to another piece by Robert Cartaino, "No Artificial Intelligence in Area 51":

Top blogs, best books, buying recommendations: those are not the hallmarks of expertise. They’re the seeds of the merely curious. A site filled with these sorts of idle, pedestrian questions will never attract the core of experts it needs to survive.

The reason I quote these things isn't to cherry-pick the places where the word "expert" is used over some other word, but to show that the usage of the word "expert" has been refined over the years. Ninefingers points out that your expert-level status is irrelevant, but that's a bit too simplistic: your expert-level status does matter. A whole lot. It's just that your expert-level status is determined not by your past experiences and certifications and degrees, but by the quality of the content you provide here.

Stack Exchange, I think, unapologetically favors experts: while newbies can get their questions answered, Stack Exchange is not a site for newbies and their facile questions. When there's a choice between doing something to cater to the newbies (and subsequently, a much larger audience) and doing something to cater to the topic/domain experts, the wind almost always breaks towards the experts.