ok I am going to play the Luttgenstein/Chomsky blah blah blah argument.
you are arguing semantics that are reduced to arguments about differences in language. it is meaningless, mostly
you are arguing semantics that are reduced to arguments about differences in language. it is meaningless, mostly
During the debate over which ranking algorithm/definition is better where I believe the Luttgenstein/Chmosky argument is most applicable because we don't have a clearly agreed upon definition of what a better ranking algorithm is. However, until an alternative is provided, we cannot possibly reach and/or explore these semantic differences.
If you surveyed people's definitions of "better [thing that they care about]" you'd get a lot of different answers, but I suspect few would say "more people like it" (even if an algorithm based on "more people like it" would be good at finding things they think are better).