The shouting match that is the current incarnation of the internet leads us to the unavoidable question: why listen better when the signal to noise ratio is so bad? I am using “listen” figuratively here … online we “listen” to others by reading … but the principle holds.
I might want to back up and explain what a signal-to-noise-ratio is …
Well, it compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise. Too much noise drowns out the signal. Kinda like trying to listen to an AM radio station (remember those?) during an electrical storm. Or trying to have a conversation in one of those God-forsaken conference centers that infest all of our major cities.
Most often, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR or S/N in the technical literature) is used to describe the quality of radio broadcast – or narrowcast – transmissions. It is also used to describe how clean the sound is in audio equipment. Or the picture in video.
The amount of useful content available online is amazing. Unfortunately, it is often buried under a mountain of relatively useless, repetitious SEO-enhanced drivel. Search engines try to cut through the fog of noise for us, but there are no guarantees that what ends up on the first page of a search is anything like what would be most useful.
Spending time/energy to learn to “listen” better seems a waste when the quality of the content is low – or drowned out by nonsense.
Actually, it is precisely now that better listening is needed.
Arguably, the internet would be markedly improved if people spent more time “listening” and less time “talking.” A groundswell in that direction would automatically reduce the amount of noise in the environment.
Be the signal, not the noise.
More anon …