misaligned incentives. people get rewarded for simply publishing SOMETHING. look at companies, bootcamps, whatever the hell. most promotions are given bc you've written some low effort blog post that really add nothing to the broader intelligence of software building. hell, even bootcamps are like "go write/publish something!!" and most of these people have barely a clue as to how software operates. GL sifting through all of that useless content

i wouldn't be surprised if a very large percentage of the last decade of tech blog posts are just remnants of someone's promotion, and is now hyperlinked on some resume, or linkedin page

But how do you know the people in the comments actually know more and aren't just an equivalently low but slightly different common denominator? You don't. The same "shallow knowledge vs deep knowledge" problem still applies.

I often read topics where I am an expert, the comments has better information than the blog in most cases. Comments are written by multiple people since there are corrections from others below the comments etc, that makes them far better than most blogs. Single humans are wrong about a lot, multiple humans arguing are way more accurate.

> Single humans are wrong about a lot, multiple humans arguing are way more accurate.

I think this is only true if the commentors are SME's & operating in good faith. We've all seen whole threads hijacked by erroneous groupthink, while the 1 or 2 SME's were buried.

The case where the hordes of commentors with casual knowledge downvote the one guy who knows enough to have some nuance because his opinion doesn't fit with their simple but wrong understanding seems far more common.