where nonreader_utility is the expected value that someone who has never read FfA gets from reading this post, and reader_utility is the expected value someone who has read the story gets from reading this post. If this expression is positive, making the post was a good idea. If this expression is negative, making the post was a bad idea.
My guess is that the absolute value of nonreader_utility is substantially above reader_utility… it’s not hard to skim over a post, find that it holds nothing new for you, and move on. (Less Wrong seems to be one of the few places on the internet that refuses to acknowledge this fact. Most places on the internet encourage users to post all the content they want, then build filtering mechanisms so that people see better content more often. LW is the only site I’ve seen where people self- and other-censor to such a significant degree… and, surprise surprise, that lead to a steady decline in user participation.) As a general rule, the point of the voting system is to give us quantitative insights in to these kind of things. So the fact that this post has a high score is evidence that making it was a good idea. We can collect additional quantitative data… in order to gather something different from the post score, let’s try to estimate cohort sizes only:
[pollid:726]
Anyway, I’ll turn your question right back at you: what do you think you are adding, exactly, by griping in the comments? Why not just downvote?
My point is that reader_utility is more or less the same when the story is posted here, as it would be if it was posted in the Open Thread and Media Thread, but that nonreader_utility would be significantly better if it was posted there rather than here.
Anyway, I’ll turn your question right back at you: what do you think you are adding, exactly, by griping in the comments? Why not just downvote?
I periodically make this sort of comment on inappropriate posts, hoping that the posters will realize that yes, they can post this type of thing in the OT/Media Thread/etc from now on, even if they previously didn’t knew of their existence / didn’t care. A downvote doesn’t do any of that—here it will look like I’m downvoting the story itself.
At any rate, if a semi-official consensus is reached, which states that Discussion should be like a normal subreddit, where simple link posts, re-posts, etc. are allowed, then I’ll stop downvoting.
My point is that reader_utility is more or less the same when the story is posted here, as it would be if it was posted in the Open Thread and Media Thread, but that nonreader_utility would be significantly better if it was posted there rather than here.
I don’t follow. A viewer is a viewer whether they are viewing from an open thread or discussion. Posting in Open Thread vs Discussion only has the effect of scaling viewer numbers (in this model, num_nonreaders & num_readers) up or down. And I would expect that the num_nonreaders to num_readers ratio is the same for Discussion readers vs Open Thread readers. (BTW note that num_readers refers to the fact that the people have read Flowers for Algernon, etc… sorry for the confusingly named variables. Feel free to refer back to the grandparent comment.)
In fact, in this toy model the open thread vs discussion vs main distinction is fairly pointless: if the expected utility of a given person seeing a given post is positive, we should give it as much exposure as possible in order to harvest as much utility is possible. And if the expected utility is negative it should not be posted anywhere.
To the extent the toy model is wrong, it’s wrong because people have a limited amount of time when they read LW and we would like to put the highest expected utility stuff in places where they are more likely to see it. If everything was posted to Discussion, finding higher-value stuff might be harder. But if there isn’t already stuff competing for attention in main/discussion, little is lost that I can see by upgrading open thread posts to discussion posts or discussion posts to main posts.
Just to make sure we’re on the same page: you could imagine an expression like
where nonreader_utility is the expected value that someone who has never read FfA gets from reading this post, and reader_utility is the expected value someone who has read the story gets from reading this post. If this expression is positive, making the post was a good idea. If this expression is negative, making the post was a bad idea.
My guess is that the absolute value of nonreader_utility is substantially above reader_utility… it’s not hard to skim over a post, find that it holds nothing new for you, and move on. (Less Wrong seems to be one of the few places on the internet that refuses to acknowledge this fact. Most places on the internet encourage users to post all the content they want, then build filtering mechanisms so that people see better content more often. LW is the only site I’ve seen where people self- and other-censor to such a significant degree… and, surprise surprise, that lead to a steady decline in user participation.) As a general rule, the point of the voting system is to give us quantitative insights in to these kind of things. So the fact that this post has a high score is evidence that making it was a good idea. We can collect additional quantitative data… in order to gather something different from the post score, let’s try to estimate cohort sizes only:
[pollid:726]
Anyway, I’ll turn your question right back at you: what do you think you are adding, exactly, by griping in the comments? Why not just downvote?
One of the very rare examples of someone complaining about a downvote being explained rather than the other way around!
My point is that reader_utility is more or less the same when the story is posted here, as it would be if it was posted in the Open Thread and Media Thread, but that nonreader_utility would be significantly better if it was posted there rather than here.
I periodically make this sort of comment on inappropriate posts, hoping that the posters will realize that yes, they can post this type of thing in the OT/Media Thread/etc from now on, even if they previously didn’t knew of their existence / didn’t care. A downvote doesn’t do any of that—here it will look like I’m downvoting the story itself.
At any rate, if a semi-official consensus is reached, which states that Discussion should be like a normal subreddit, where simple link posts, re-posts, etc. are allowed, then I’ll stop downvoting.
I don’t follow. A viewer is a viewer whether they are viewing from an open thread or discussion. Posting in Open Thread vs Discussion only has the effect of scaling viewer numbers (in this model,
num_nonreaders&num_readers) up or down. And I would expect that thenum_nonreaderstonum_readersratio is the same for Discussion readers vs Open Thread readers. (BTW note thatnum_readersrefers to the fact that the people have read Flowers for Algernon, etc… sorry for the confusingly named variables. Feel free to refer back to the grandparent comment.)In fact, in this toy model the open thread vs discussion vs main distinction is fairly pointless: if the expected utility of a given person seeing a given post is positive, we should give it as much exposure as possible in order to harvest as much utility is possible. And if the expected utility is negative it should not be posted anywhere.
To the extent the toy model is wrong, it’s wrong because people have a limited amount of time when they read LW and we would like to put the highest expected utility stuff in places where they are more likely to see it. If everything was posted to Discussion, finding higher-value stuff might be harder. But if there isn’t already stuff competing for attention in main/discussion, little is lost that I can see by upgrading open thread posts to discussion posts or discussion posts to main posts.