Another example of concrete reality : that FQXI contest itself

There are even problems which professional researchers themselves struggle with in their professional activity, including the very activity of wondering about the world's problems and possible solutions, yet they may still fail to consider their struggle as an example of problem to be listed as a possible object of consideration in their general study. Actually, to discover examples, we don't need to search very far. Indeed a remarkable one is here directly under hand.

Consider the problem that the fqxi organizers were facing in the beginning of 2014: they were curious about ideas that many people from all over the world may have about how should humanity steer the future. Most people, in front of such a problem, would simply browse the web for answers, trying different key expressions for this search, or would browse some specialized sites already listing such ideas, such as the site of the New Civilization Network. But it seems that they did not expect this kind of search to provide as good quality answers as they wished. Indeed, it would need quite a deal of luck to guess the right keywords that need to be tried in a search engine, that would successfully lead where the best answers on the topic might be found; for any expression that can be tried, any interesting result would be lost in a lot of rubbish, out-of-subject search results. So they tried another method instead. And a quite expensive one, in fact: the method they chose to search for answers, was to open an essay contest on this topic, putting tens of thousand $$ on the table inviting anyone in the world to provide their own answers, and to rate each other's essays. But what did they expect in doing so ? Did they think that it would effectively stimulate the writing of new ideas that nobody wrote or put accessible on the web yet ? Did they seriously think, that if someone had or was able to develop a great idea to change the world, he would have waited for this contest to be open before writing it and putting it on the web ?
Admittedly, their method happened to work for me in this year's contest (2015 on the link between math and physics) : some of my best possible ideas which I had not fully written yet but parts of which I happened to have written just before, turned out to fit quite well with their questions, which stimulated me to actually write them nicely in this format, while such coincidences did not happen (or I did not feel them well enough) in previous years even though some of my writings did somehow answer some of their questions.
However, I consider this a matter of chance, that they might stumble on the right questions to request as an essay contest, for some of the most interesting truths to fit their expected format and come up.
Actually for 2014 I had the kind of great ideas they were searching for, and I did put them freely accessible on the web since long ago. But they didn't know it, and, if they tried searches with keywords, they probably failed to see it.
So, indeed, current systems of web search were not good enough, but was their own expensive method better ? Well, I may have seen their contest opening but I was anyway busy at that time (as I'll explain below) and I did not feel their expected format as very suitable to try formatting my ideas into: 9 pages would be clearly insufficient to explain all what would need to be explained, and, as I already did a lot of work to explain my ideas to hundreds of people, I was quite fed up with the idea of having to work putting things all over again in a new format that seemed a quite unrealistic format to put into anyway.
Still I deeply sympathize with their felt need to have every contribution put in no more than 9 pages because it is so awfully boring to have to read so many packs of pointless bullshit as they anyway usually receive in countless numbers at every contest they open, the multiplication of their boredom by a too big size of every pointless entry would surely make their work completely desperate.
So the question remains : if the main point of their contest openings with the prizes they offer, was to serve as "better web search engines" to collect already existing good works and ideas, than more usual automatic search engines which are admittedly quite poor at this task, then, is their contest method a so much more efficient search engine for the task ? I'm afraid not, as I see it overwhelmed with worthless results that waste a lot of time to review as well.

Still, did they start seriously studying the question of what kind of search method might be really more efficient than this ? It seems not. And it is understandable. Because it does not seem that a small group can easily succeed implementing a better solution for just themselves to better search and find the answers to their specific questions. A real major improvement cannot be done in an isolated manner by a small group for a specific search ; a whole new World Wide Web with much more general and pervasive restructured searching abilities would be required instead, for any specific search to be eased inside it as a particular case. It is quite frightening to dare thinking about the complexity of that problem.
Concretely, it would have been so convenient to them if they had a search engine able to detect the fact that, when I happened to explain and debate my solution to an audience, about 99% of the people usually turned out to be convinced after debate about the excellence of this solution. The problem was, this information could not enter the web to be available for automated processing, because the participants of these debates did not have an online system under hand where to enter this information of their conviction level for this processing. A kind of system which precisely my project would provide... if it was implemented. I did not precisely focus on this specific kind of information but more on the general problem of the needed global structure of the network that would make many kinds of trusted information networks much easier to implement; I include solutions to similar problems with some common patterns with this one, namely the problem of trust and reputation, the general measure of indirect agreement to something through delegates, and the online voting problem, so that for now the list of functions I explicitly described partially but significantly intersects the list of those that are needed here, and a complete solution to this would just be one small step further.

Main page:
On humanity's failures to steer itself properly