Then maybe I can link to those posts in a larger post
Yes, this seems to me like a good strategy for posting on LW. Start with smaller, then generalize (and link to previous posts when needed).
One advantage is that when things go wrong—if one of the smaller articles is strongly rejected—it gives you an opportunity to stop and reflect. Maybe you were wrong, in which case it is good that you didn’t write the more general article (because it would be downvoted). Maybe the LW readers were wrong, but that still means that you should communicate your (smaller, specific) point better, before moving to more general claims.
Another advantage is that, if your circumstances or priorities change, and suddenly you don’t have time to write for LW anymore, the smaller self-contained articles still provide value.
I have seen people make a mistake of posting a long outline first (which sometimes even got lots of upvotes), and then part 2 got downvoted because readers fundamentally disagreed with it… and now what? If someone disagrees with the part 2, they probably won’t be happy about part 3 which builds upon the part 2, so now every part would get a downvote.
Yes, this seems to me like a good strategy for posting on LW. Start with smaller, then generalize (and link to previous posts when needed).
One advantage is that when things go wrong—if one of the smaller articles is strongly rejected—it gives you an opportunity to stop and reflect. Maybe you were wrong, in which case it is good that you didn’t write the more general article (because it would be downvoted). Maybe the LW readers were wrong, but that still means that you should communicate your (smaller, specific) point better, before moving to more general claims.
Another advantage is that, if your circumstances or priorities change, and suddenly you don’t have time to write for LW anymore, the smaller self-contained articles still provide value.
I have seen people make a mistake of posting a long outline first (which sometimes even got lots of upvotes), and then part 2 got downvoted because readers fundamentally disagreed with it… and now what? If someone disagrees with the part 2, they probably won’t be happy about part 3 which builds upon the part 2, so now every part would get a downvote.