I’m going to “both sides” this. On the one hand, sure, it was pretty clear what the links were about. On the other hand, communication is a two way street. If you know that much of your audience won’t bother to click links, and you can see that the one-box summary looks surprisingly reasonable, i think it’s worth a line saying something, like, “they put the reasonable part in the first paragraph, but by paragraph two or three these articles really go off the rails”.
The actual post is just links, Discourse adds the previews. So if the poster is guilty of something, it’s not previewing their post to see if that phenomenon occurs (that would also have caught the repeat link).
I know I often have auto-preview turned off because of the youtube-posting bug.
My position is if they don’t care enough about the content to click the links then to hell with them. They can be read by the people that are interested.
Then why don’t we all just post naked links to personal blogs instead of using our words in this forum itself?
Communication is a two-way street. One almost all of us fail from time to time
Why should I care about the content of this link?
Apartheid, meaning “apartness” in Afrikaans, was a system of legalized racial segregation and discrimination enforced by the South African National Party government from 1948 until its dismantling in the early 1990s. Following the National Party’s…
Or this link?
Want me to click on a link to learn something? Put a little meat on the bone, give me a hook, tell me why I should care. At least copy the ridiculous parts of one citation and direct me to the others that are just as bad.
I’m not even going to bother clicking on a naked link like “Trump’s latest outrage”; not because I don’t think Trump is the worst president we’ve ever had, but because I’m not going to invest my frankly limited attention span without more to go on.
HE DID!!! The post was very clear that these links would demonstrate the Nazi leanings of Grokipedia. If you didn’t understand the hook based on that post, you’re an idiot.
If you don’t care enough about the details, then don’t click the fucking links. The links are there for people who do care.
I think you missed that everyone agrees that naked links are bad. But we aren’t talking about that here.
Except we are. Not everybody has link previews turned on. Also, some posters were defending those naked links. So, there’s that, as well.
Based on the actual post which only stated “This is about all you need to know about Grokipedia”, you’d have to have some background knowledge (about the poster or Grok or some other associated fact) to infer the likely contents.
That might have been the case if not for
IOW, what we immediately saw contradicted the meaning we were supposed to take.
I’m not too worried about you. You’d read the entire articles and see nothing wrong with them.
Yes, my assumption is that people reading this thread have background knowledge about Musk and Grok. You are correct, if someone jumped into the thread blind at that point, it would be confusing. I’m not worried about those people.
Do not put words in my mouth. I am neither an apologist for or a supporter of racism.
Christ, there is nothing so trivial that the pedants of the Dope won’t turn it into a federal case.
Yes there is.
No there isn’t
Splonge!!!
My only problem with the post was that some readers (like me) might not have known what Grokipedia was, and that it was (as I now understand it) Elmo’s creation. Was it mentioned somewhere before in this two-part topic that now has nearly 13,000 posts? Maybe. Would have been nice to explain it instead of assuming that everybody knew what it was. Not having heard of it before doesn’t make someone an “idiot”.
Same. I actually opened the first link, began to read, and then when I realized how long it was, and how many more links there were, I abandoned ship.
Bullshit.
Okay… and that is followed up with either 5 naked links or 5 links with bland high level definitions of the topic.
Yes, we can all assume that something ugly is at the link (and it is… see below) but that’s not a hook. It’s a poor choice of posting style if you actually want people to engage with you on the topic.
Jeebus, is that a terrible terrible website. I mean, entirely aside from the content, the page itself is miserable to read, and the language used is so irritably dry and deliberately convoluted. I get a headache just trying to read it.
You mean the world’s best and brightest couldn’t figure it might somehow be related to the Grok AI that was previously mentioned in this thread and discussed by lots of people (like you!) ? Say it ain’t so…
Idiot.