> Before the advent of the internet this stuff wouldn’t be worth the paper it is published on.
Are you seriously suggesting that before the internet no one published or wrote about highly niche or uninteresting subjects? That you couldn't find mundane facts from history or nature written down somewhere?
> Edit: what would be really cool is if I could leave a note on a page saying "hey, I visited this page and I'm looking to connect with other people interested in the Peruvian Foovius Barivius Moth"... ping me
No, that wouldn't be cool at all. What we'd then have is a social network of people competing for some kind of points or popularity, or to prove who was the most expert or most interested in the subject. And we would see the quality of the articles degrade, and suddenly no one wants to work on the unpopular stuff. And people like you would be left wondering, "gee, why is it no one wants to write unpopular articles for this encyclopedia?"
It also really sucks to have to constantly stop in a car for all of those annoying traffic lights, stop signs, and of course crosswalks. It would be much much much easier and faster to just continue driving without stopping to my destination. It would also probably be bad for the environment with all of that extra idle time waiting and acceleration.
The argument sounds ridiculous when framed from a drivers point of view. And it's the same from the cyclists. Either you want traffic laws to be obeyed or you don't. Offering up that "really sucks" isn't a valid reason to ignore the laws.
Well if energy output is your reasoning: then it's orders of magnitude more energy for a car to come to a full stop and re-accelerate than it is for a pedestrian to let it pass.
Should cars then have priority over people in a crosswalk?
I have yet to meet or read about a single person who has ever said "I really enjoy scrolling through twenty paragraphs of backstory and embedded auto-play videos and advertisements while I browse for recipes."
So while I'm sure there exist bloggers who put care into these things, a tiny minority of people seem to find any value there. In fact it now seems that so many people are aggravated by this style that an app to remove them all has been developed.
It sounds like the OPs method not only allows people to shine by diving into what they've built, but it would also filter out people like yourself, who are so unbelievably sensitive that it would be a nightmare to work around all of your triggers.
Why would you take his general statement (musicians) and turn it into such a specific example (_jazz_ musicians)? You make it sound like jazz musicians are the only ones who would transcribe music to study it.
Are you seriously suggesting that before the internet no one published or wrote about highly niche or uninteresting subjects? That you couldn't find mundane facts from history or nature written down somewhere?
> Edit: what would be really cool is if I could leave a note on a page saying "hey, I visited this page and I'm looking to connect with other people interested in the Peruvian Foovius Barivius Moth"... ping me
No, that wouldn't be cool at all. What we'd then have is a social network of people competing for some kind of points or popularity, or to prove who was the most expert or most interested in the subject. And we would see the quality of the articles degrade, and suddenly no one wants to work on the unpopular stuff. And people like you would be left wondering, "gee, why is it no one wants to write unpopular articles for this encyclopedia?"