Eliezer’s rule is the real rule: the division is just about quality, as measured by voting. You might ask how closely voting follows the bullet points, but the point is just to predict the votes. Your recent posts don’t belong in main because people don’t like them. That’s all there is to it.
Well, there is also the question of many posts you should have divided it into, but I don’t think people really care that much.
Eliezer’s rule is the real rule: the division is just about quality, as measured by voting. You might ask how closely voting follows the bullet points, but the point is just to predict the votes. Your recent posts don’t belong in main because people don’t like them. That’s all there is to it.
If this is true, then we definitely should adopt shminux’s proposal.
Well, there is also the question of many posts you should have divided it into, but I don’t think people really care that much.
One thing I’m wondering about is how much people didn’t like them because I was saying controversial things while also saying, “I will give more justification for this later,” which would have been avoided by not splitting the posts.
Did people complain about this? I’m sure you paid more attention than I did, but I only remember this complaint on part 1, the part that was better received. Moreover, I only remember you saying this in part 1. I think the more popular complaint about parts 2 and 3 is that they were not central to Taubes and not interesting topics. But those complaints might have been avoided by having a single post.
One thing I’m wondering about is how much people didn’t like them because I was saying controversial things while also saying, “I will give more justification for this later,” which would have been avoided by not splitting the posts.
I didn’t downvote them, but think they would have been a better fit for discussion than for main. While a summary of research or case studies on nutrition would have made a good post for main, I don’t think a criticism of a popular book on nutrition (that I haven’t read nor even heard much about here) is as generally interesting and useful.
One thing I’m wondering about is how much people didn’t like them because I was saying controversial things while also saying, “I will give more justification for this later,” which would have been avoided by not splitting the posts.
Well, to be frank the reason I don’t like the posts in question is that their main argument is the same kind of intellectually dishonest strawman you accuse Taubes of making.
Eliezer’s rule is the real rule: the division is just about quality, as measured by voting.
But it is a difference whether an automatism makes this decision based on votes or whether a human pulls the trigger.
You might ask how closely voting follows the bullet points, but the point is just to predict the votes.
The current mechanics forces you to consider the implied rules to ‘predict the votes’. And the implied rules seem a lot like what Yvain wrote. Maybe not as a hard border but as a more is better with a subjectively perceived threshold.
Another difference is that being moved away from Main when you were so bold to post there gives strong negative feedback.
On the other hand I haven’t seen any Discussion post being promoted to Main since I am here (Sepember).
That doesn’t mean that I disagree with the rules. I like the quality it ensures in Main.
I wonder how many subscribe to Main and not to Discussion. Maybe a question for a survey.
The second most recent post on main, Cognito Mentoring started on discussion. It was promoted not because of the quality of the argument, but because it is an announcement.
A bit over 2 days from the first comment to the date on the post (which is the date of the move). This should help calibrate your ability to detect these moves. Also, it gives an easy way to detect moves: if the comment is older than the post.
Added: also, the meditation post appears to have spent 2 days in discussion. The google cache currently shows the original date; and there is a comment from that time.
shrug I subscribe to Main and not Discussion, but that’s in part because I only subscribe to things that don’t generate more content than I can read or a large proportion of content that I’m not interested in. So Main posts come to me automatically, and then I usually check Discussion manually and just pick out the more interesting-sounding threads
Eliezer’s rule is the real rule: the division is just about quality, as measured by voting. You might ask how closely voting follows the bullet points, but the point is just to predict the votes. Your recent posts don’t belong in main because people don’t like them. That’s all there is to it.
Well, there is also the question of many posts you should have divided it into, but I don’t think people really care that much.
If this is true, then we definitely should adopt shminux’s proposal.
One thing I’m wondering about is how much people didn’t like them because I was saying controversial things while also saying, “I will give more justification for this later,” which would have been avoided by not splitting the posts.
Did people complain about this?
I’m sure you paid more attention than I did, but I only remember this complaint on part 1, the part that was better received. Moreover, I only remember you saying this in part 1. I think the more popular complaint about parts 2 and 3 is that they were not central to Taubes and not interesting topics. But those complaints might have been avoided by having a single post.
I didn’t downvote them, but think they would have been a better fit for discussion than for main. While a summary of research or case studies on nutrition would have made a good post for main, I don’t think a criticism of a popular book on nutrition (that I haven’t read nor even heard much about here) is as generally interesting and useful.
Well, to be frank the reason I don’t like the posts in question is that their main argument is the same kind of intellectually dishonest strawman you accuse Taubes of making.
But it is a difference whether an automatism makes this decision based on votes or whether a human pulls the trigger.
The current mechanics forces you to consider the implied rules to ‘predict the votes’. And the implied rules seem a lot like what Yvain wrote. Maybe not as a hard border but as a more is better with a subjectively perceived threshold.
Another difference is that being moved away from Main when you were so bold to post there gives strong negative feedback.
On the other hand I haven’t seen any Discussion post being promoted to Main since I am here (Sepember).
That doesn’t mean that I disagree with the rules. I like the quality it ensures in Main.
I wonder how many subscribe to Main and not to Discussion. Maybe a question for a survey.
The second most recent post on main, Cognito Mentoring started on discussion. It was promoted not because of the quality of the argument, but because it is an announcement.
Then it must have stayed relatively shortly in Discussion because I didn’t see it.
But actually that being an announcement means it doesn’t really count.
A bit over 2 days from the first comment to the date on the post (which is the date of the move). This should help calibrate your ability to detect these moves. Also, it gives an easy way to detect moves: if the comment is older than the post.
Added: also, the meditation post appears to have spent 2 days in discussion. The google cache currently shows the original date; and there is a comment from that time.
Handy. I didn’t notice that.
I have to assume that I overlooked some moves.
I will probably not track that in the future.
Tap out.
shrug I subscribe to Main and not Discussion, but that’s in part because I only subscribe to things that don’t generate more content than I can read or a large proportion of content that I’m not interested in. So Main posts come to me automatically, and then I usually check Discussion manually and just pick out the more interesting-sounding threads
It’s not about quality. As the wiki says, discussion is about:
a link with minimal commentary
a question or brainstorming opportunity for the Less Wrong community
In other words, stuff where the main focus is on having a discussion. Whereas main is about core LW topics.