I am unaware of the true level of demand (I would wager a very small number of people really want it, and most people would sort of nod their heads in mild approval of it, and a further very small number of people oppose), but I do know that that particular page is linked to outside of Less Wrong, so it’s at the very least embarrassing to have it be so out of date. (But useless? I don’t think so!) My idea would have been to simply redirect it to a more typical sort of archive, one that wasn’t generated manually (or, as you indicate [I think?], some combination of manual and scripted thaumaturgy).
However, if none of that is an option, you can count me as “someone” who wants that done.
Perhaps of note is that my True Motivation for wanting an archives link is that I think the sequences are best read simply chronologically. At least, this is how I tell people they should read them. And then I selfishly want to read all the rest of Less Wrong also chronologically.
I am unaware of the true level of demand (I would wager a very small number of people really want it, and most people would sort of nod their heads in mild approval of it, and a further very small number of people oppose), but I do know that that particular page is linked to outside of Less Wrong, so it’s at the very least embarrassing to have it be so out of date. (But useless? I don’t think so!) My idea would have been to simply redirect it to a more typical sort of archive, one that wasn’t generated manually (or, as you indicate [I think?], some combination of manual and scripted thaumaturgy).
However, if none of that is an option, you can count me as “someone” who wants that done.
Perhaps of note is that my True Motivation for wanting an archives link is that I think the sequences are best read simply chronologically. At least, this is how I tell people they should read them. And then I selfishly want to read all the rest of Less Wrong also chronologically.
This is the way I feel about it.