One of the suggestions I’ve seen here that I see more wisdom in now than when I first heard it was “try to not have three or more of the most recent comments.”
I come from forums; I’m generally the sole verbose libertarian on a board of verbose liberals. Generally, I will get into deep and long quote wars with several people; I’ll respond to each person that posts, often before anyone else posts (so maybe a third to a half of the posts in a discussion thread I’m involved in might be by me, and a comparable fraction of the words written will be by me).
That’s not what this site seems to be about. This site is about becoming less wrong, not winning arguments; learning to see the forest, not fighting over trees. I already took that sort of approach during arguments (I would welcome being shown to be wrong, admit I was wrong, and so on) but here feels different. There’s much more benefit in waiting for the comments to come in, reading multiple of them at once, and contemplating them all together, rather than responding to each one individually and not connecting them. There’s also just a benefit to adding more contemplation to your conversations- the other person will be around, and you don’t have a blind post count here. If you want your karma to increase, you’ve got to convince more people to press the vote up button than the vote down button; and I’m genuinely surprised at which of my comments have had the highest karma, and how some posts I thought were gems were apparently rather unappreciated.
As mentioned elsewhere, the signal to noise ratio here matters. And so it’s worthwhile to have an external throttle on your output until you’re comfortable with your output. The vote up/down buttons are communication tools, and don’t be afraid to use them instead of posting. Just don’t go crazy (and don’t vote someone down because they disagree with you, only if they disagree with you in an irrational or unedifying way).
One of the suggestions I’ve seen here that I see more wisdom in now than when I first heard it was “try to not have three or more of the most recent comments.”
I get the feeling that rule was created as a way to explain/rationalize to people who post many cranky comments what they’re doing wrong without getting into big arguments attempting to explain to them what’s wrong with their posts.
In any case I’ve certainly had three or more posts in the recent comments (I tend to post in batches) without anyone complaining, or probably even noticing.
I get the feeling that rule was created as a way to explain/rationalize to people who post many cranky comments what they’re doing wrong without getting into big arguments attempting to explain to them what’s wrong with their posts.
Anything wrong with that?
Sure LW is about becoming less wrong but I have a feeling that the tempo and mode of correction is somewhat incompatible with what would be needed to correct the above.
In any case I’ve certainly had three or more posts in the recent comments (I tend to post in batches) without anyone complaining, or probably even noticing.
In any case I’ve certainly had three or more posts in the recent comments (I tend to post in batches) without anyone complaining, or probably even noticing.
The issue is surely the proportion of posts (especially on a given thread) one person is producing, and in the old days the denominator was much lower.
One of the suggestions I’ve seen here that I see more wisdom in now than when I first heard it was “try to not have three or more of the most recent comments.”
I come from forums; I’m generally the sole verbose libertarian on a board of verbose liberals. Generally, I will get into deep and long quote wars with several people; I’ll respond to each person that posts, often before anyone else posts (so maybe a third to a half of the posts in a discussion thread I’m involved in might be by me, and a comparable fraction of the words written will be by me).
That’s not what this site seems to be about. This site is about becoming less wrong, not winning arguments; learning to see the forest, not fighting over trees. I already took that sort of approach during arguments (I would welcome being shown to be wrong, admit I was wrong, and so on) but here feels different. There’s much more benefit in waiting for the comments to come in, reading multiple of them at once, and contemplating them all together, rather than responding to each one individually and not connecting them. There’s also just a benefit to adding more contemplation to your conversations- the other person will be around, and you don’t have a blind post count here. If you want your karma to increase, you’ve got to convince more people to press the vote up button than the vote down button; and I’m genuinely surprised at which of my comments have had the highest karma, and how some posts I thought were gems were apparently rather unappreciated.
As mentioned elsewhere, the signal to noise ratio here matters. And so it’s worthwhile to have an external throttle on your output until you’re comfortable with your output. The vote up/down buttons are communication tools, and don’t be afraid to use them instead of posting. Just don’t go crazy (and don’t vote someone down because they disagree with you, only if they disagree with you in an irrational or unedifying way).
I get the feeling that rule was created as a way to explain/rationalize to people who post many cranky comments what they’re doing wrong without getting into big arguments attempting to explain to them what’s wrong with their posts.
In any case I’ve certainly had three or more posts in the recent comments (I tend to post in batches) without anyone complaining, or probably even noticing.
Anything wrong with that?
Sure LW is about becoming less wrong but I have a feeling that the tempo and mode of correction is somewhat incompatible with what would be needed to correct the above.
Me too.
The issue is surely the proportion of posts (especially on a given thread) one person is producing, and in the old days the denominator was much lower.