Is it appropriate to spam Less Wrong with at least four articles on the same topic, especially one already well-known to the majority of the readership?
Is it appropriate? I don’t see the problem, if people aren’t interested, they can not read them or even downvote them.
You’re asking a loaded question though. Louie will get a positive karma bias by being the first good optimal philanthropy article in a while. I think your article is probably better than his but might not rank as high, and it is even less likely to rank as high if submitted simultaneously with three other optimal philanthropy articles.
Waitingforgodel’s article is good, but isn’t written for a LW front page audience so it won’t do well in terms of karma. Yours similarly doesn’t do the intensive linkback to LW thing popularized by Eliezer.
Of course it doesn’t really matter, since it doesn’t sound like Roko will be judging based solely on LW karma score.
I hope that my article’s promotion doesn’t overshadow other articles or prevent yours from finding the readership it deserves. It’s a great narrative and I love how the metaphors put things in perspective. I especially like how you build up and then knock down the idea of judging charities by their overhead alone.
I’m not coordinating with Eliezer so we’ll have to see what editorial decision he makes in terms of promoting these articles or trying to prevent an “optimal philanthropy overload”.
I’m in the process of removing less relevant links from my article, but with your permission, I’d like to cross-link to the final version of your article in some above the fold place once it’s been posted. So you’d be front-paged by proxy at the very least.
I think yours is especially good. Low quality ones might just not get promoted. Unpromoted articles generally only get seen by people with time on their hands.
Is it appropriate to spam Less Wrong with at least four articles on the same topic, especially one already well-known to the majority of the readership?
Is it appropriate? I don’t see the problem, if people aren’t interested, they can not read them or even downvote them.
You’re asking a loaded question though. Louie will get a positive karma bias by being the first good optimal philanthropy article in a while. I think your article is probably better than his but might not rank as high, and it is even less likely to rank as high if submitted simultaneously with three other optimal philanthropy articles.
Waitingforgodel’s article is good, but isn’t written for a LW front page audience so it won’t do well in terms of karma. Yours similarly doesn’t do the intensive linkback to LW thing popularized by Eliezer.
Of course it doesn’t really matter, since it doesn’t sound like Roko will be judging based solely on LW karma score.
I hope that my article’s promotion doesn’t overshadow other articles or prevent yours from finding the readership it deserves. It’s a great narrative and I love how the metaphors put things in perspective. I especially like how you build up and then knock down the idea of judging charities by their overhead alone.
I’m not coordinating with Eliezer so we’ll have to see what editorial decision he makes in terms of promoting these articles or trying to prevent an “optimal philanthropy overload”.
I’m in the process of removing less relevant links from my article, but with your permission, I’d like to cross-link to the final version of your article in some above the fold place once it’s been posted. So you’d be front-paged by proxy at the very least.
Can’t we just declare it a sequence and be done with it?
I think yours is especially good. Low quality ones might just not get promoted. Unpromoted articles generally only get seen by people with time on their hands.