Tabooing the word "status", I simply mean that it is SAFE to guess your teacher's password, but it is COOL to criticize. I expect most people to prefer SAFE to COOL. These are my expectations:
If group of people who know each other reads a new website... most people will not care (but may wait for group consensus, to be safe), some people will criticize it to be COOL.
If group of people who know each other reads a new website, because their professor told them so, and it seems like the professor likes the website... most people will write savourless praise, because it's SAFE, one or two will criticize, because it's COOL. -- This is what I believe has happened.
If group of people who know each other reads a new website, because their professor told them so, and it seems like the professor dislikes the website... most people will write hasty criticism, because it is both SAFE and COOL. Only an exceptional meta-contrarian will write careful praise, because he has a different definition of COOL. -- This is irrelevant to article, I just followed my thoughts further.
Now I am not sure if I did the tabooing thing correctly; seems like I just replaced "status" with "cool". Well, at least it was a move in good direction, because "status" is a hypothesis, while "cool" is something we emotionally perceive.
If group of people who know each other reads a new website, because their professor told them so, and it seems like the professor dislikes the website... most people will write hasty criticism, because it is both SAFE and COOL. Only an exceptional meta-contrarian will write careful praise, because he has a different definition of COOL.
I'm not so sure about the label "exceptional meta-contrarian". I mean, I do this, but generally just because I disrespect my professors and enjoy getting in arguments with them if I think I can win. Does that count?
Link.
Given the positive reactions, I think the professor seeded them with a positive impression of the site's content.