When something at work is unclear, how should you gather information so the problem is most likely to get solved? If it is the kind of thing you can Google in a simple Q&A way, then Google it — but past a certain level of abstraction (or specialization), it is not that easy.
To cut to the conclusion: the most efficient and reliable method is probably "asking someone who knows." Books and the web are easy, but as information sources they are a mix of good and bad, and often you cannot map them onto the challenge you are facing right now. In other words, reliability and flexibility are limited.
And if we stick to searching on the web, that challenge is exactly what Google — which wants to organize the world's information — has still not fully solved.
Why does this problem arise? If there are issues on (1) the searcher's side and (2) the information-resource side: the former is failing to put into precise language a question that can solve the challenge (≈ not knowing what to look up); the latter is failing to imagine (prepare for, or simply not having) the searcher's intent.
(That is why SEO says grasping search intent matters, and why Google keeps improving its algorithm so that even when searchers cannot put it into words, it can suggest, "Is this what you wanted to look up?")
The problem that the searcher has not put things into language does not change whether you ask a person or search the web; the listener (on the web, Google's algorithm) has to strain their imagination. In general, putting a challenge into precise language means stacking Q&A. That is why a person who can design communication well and has imagination is one step ahead at giving the searcher what they want.
There may simply be no information on the web — but before that, many people do not have the patience to keep Q&A-ing forever with Google's algorithm. Even if you keep going with Google and eventually reach an answer, looking back you often think it would have been faster to ask someone who knows.
To guarantee reliability, the identity of the publisher matters, and in recent years (though it has been true for quite a while) Google has encouraged publishers to signal authority — that is one example. Even so, authoritative information is still not enough, and even when "reliability" is somewhat secured, "flexibility" is not.
One attempt to solve that is real-name Q&A services like Quora. Other real-name (reliability-based) posts — Facebook or NewsPicks comment sections — may be similar, even if they are not Q&A.
(Strictly speaking, even these real-name services show up in Google results, so Google still plays a major role in meeting search intent.)
But even on Quora, respondents who both have the knowledge to solve the challenge and can imagine the intent of a poorly worded question do not conveniently appear. And even when they do, those sites make it hard to establish a communication process that reaches accurate information through dialogue.
Even stacking one Q&A after another may not equal giving the searcher the precise information they want. Those platforms often become places to criticize the asker's vagueness rather than places for the respondent's imagination — so they are not well suited to abstract information gathering. (Yes, askers should clarify their needs; but in reality, rough information gathering is common.)
Also, when you want to keep even the fact that you are looking something up private, you cannot run Q&A on a platform visible to strangers. (Posting a work question on Quora is rarely realistic, and so on.)
In the end, asking someone who knows is advantageous in both reliability and flexibility.
I have been a bit abstract so far, so let me organize it here.
Take the question "How should I learn XX?"
Obviously the search purpose is not put into language. As a result, whether on the web or with an acquaintance, you get pulled into the speaker's position-talk — unless the listener is strong at imagination.
Next: "While learning XX, I am stuck on △△. From searching I learned ××, but I do not know if that is valid. I want to know how to handle this."
That may still be incomplete, but it is more concrete and easier to answer than before.
And the answer will require some expertise and flexibility. In that case, asking someone who knows is still the fastest.
When I lack domain knowledge but want a rough picture, I ask an acquaintance if I can; if not, I lean on external partners or someone I can consult on a spot basis.
Quora is a great service, but it rarely matches my search intent when it really matters. And as I wrote, I do not feel like posting a question on Quora anyway.
If you picture concrete ways of asking someone who knows:
・Friends and acquaintances (basically free)
・Partners you work with continuously — clients, counsel, and so on (ongoing service or retainer fees)
・Consultants you can ask on a spot basis (pay per engagement)
Free information is not necessarily junk, but accessing good information often means putting your own money on the line.
That is why it matters to have friends and acquaintances you can ask cheaply (or free) across many domains. Whether having many friends (a wide network) has value is unclear, but a wide knowledge network of friends and acquaintances does.
Unfortunately I do not have much of that network, so I often pay. On the other hand, a money incentive is easy: because I am paying, the other party has a duty to provide information, and when work is involved the quality must be guaranteed.
Either way, I always want channels that reach good information.
Lately I have been thinking about how to access better information than books or web search, even if it is less effective than asking someone directly.
As I keep saying, asking someone who knows is probably still the best cost performance.
That is when I noticed I barely cover sound-based media.
Media that convey information by sound: radio is the clear example; lately, podcasts. In a broad sense, YouTube videos and seminars are sound media too. (If the information itself has value — setting aside entertainment where the visual is the point — YouTube or seminars are basically driven by sound/words.)
Sound-based media are rarely fully written out.
In other words, they are not text sitting on the web. They are hard for Google search to catch.
And the information itself is less organized (designed) than text. At least unless the speaker wrote a script and followed it strictly, it is hard to call it tidy data.
Sound media are relatively easy to design as communication.
All the more so in dialogue or discussion form.
If someone is just rambling things you could get from reading slides, that does not help much — but even talking off the cuff often includes suggestive content that is simply less systematic.
(※ In the near future Google may not only return matching YouTube videos or podcasts, but show the exact matching portion as text in results. Side note: would the payout then be per search rather than per play...?)
As a concrete example: there is a book I use as one thinking axis, and I recently happened to watch a dialogue video with the author on YouTube.
The theme was the same as the book, but it felt very fresh and suggestive — not only because it summarized the book clearly, but because side topics and analogies that branched out in the dialogue were useful.
Having read the book may have created a synergy, but either way I felt I had accessed good information.
(Above all, the interviewer was excellent and had strong communication skills.)
It is a dialogue, so the communication is somewhat prearranged, but it is still a simulated experience of asking someone who knows yourself.
Expanding that: the idea that "if you want to know a famous person's thinking, reading their book is better than going to their seminar — more systematic, more information" is partly right but has a flaw. (I tend to think that way myself.)
It depends on the seminar: if it is someone reading a script, maybe so — but a dialogue between capable people often gives access to good information. Having to make the other person understand on the spot, and conveying the essence in plain words, is part of it.
Another analogy: when you want to understand a political topic, watching experts debate it on video can grasp the current state better than reading a book.
Alright — this has gotten long, so let me wrap up.
When you want to know something and gather information, if you use reliability and flexibility as axes, asking a person is best.
Beyond that, how else can you relatively well reach good information?
Content where "experts or people on the ground" (reliability) speak through "media and methods that lend themselves to communication design" (flexibility) is probably good.
That is it. It got longer than I expected when I started writing, so I worry the logic is a bit weak and not fully pulled together.
I used reliability and flexibility as axes for information gathering; other axes would yield different insights — please find your own. (That ending sounded like a cheap web article.)
© 2020 ZUUHE