I have a bit of an “Unspoken LessWrong norms” question, which resolves into several questions:
In this comment, I edited the comment itself out of forum-going habit (where it’s usually looked-down upon to “doublepost”, or post consecutively in the same thread, for various reasons) when I wanted to add my meta-thoughts and analysis of what I discussed. I also do the same thing when I simply want to add more content / thought to a comment, by default.
Is this the preferred method of self-review or content-addition, such as might be inferred from the “Edited To Add” acronym I’ve seen on the wiki jargon page, or would replying to my own comment in this case have been slightly better in some way? The first potential cause to do so that props to mind would be to allow for separate upvoting/downvoting somesuch, which some might prefer. If I wanted to have maximal feedback, should I do that from now on? What situations would make replies-to-self (or “doubleposts”) preferable, zero-sum, unacceptable?
I think that replying to yourself is generally acceptable (although there’s no special benefit other than the ones you mentioned). Just don’t do it so much that it clogs up a thread.
AFAICT, there’s no hard consensus here; I’ve seen both patterns, and I haven’t seen either pattern disproportionately criticized. As you say, separating distinct thoughts into multiple posts maximizes the potential clarity of feedback provided through voting. In the case of edits, it also causes the new thought to appear in the Recent Comments queue, which some people read; this makes the new thought more visible to those people.
I have a bit of an “Unspoken LessWrong norms” question, which resolves into several questions:
In this comment, I edited the comment itself out of forum-going habit (where it’s usually looked-down upon to “doublepost”, or post consecutively in the same thread, for various reasons) when I wanted to add my meta-thoughts and analysis of what I discussed. I also do the same thing when I simply want to add more content / thought to a comment, by default.
Is this the preferred method of self-review or content-addition, such as might be inferred from the “Edited To Add” acronym I’ve seen on the wiki jargon page, or would replying to my own comment in this case have been slightly better in some way? The first potential cause to do so that props to mind would be to allow for separate upvoting/downvoting somesuch, which some might prefer. If I wanted to have maximal feedback, should I do that from now on? What situations would make replies-to-self (or “doubleposts”) preferable, zero-sum, unacceptable?
I think that replying to yourself is generally acceptable (although there’s no special benefit other than the ones you mentioned). Just don’t do it so much that it clogs up a thread.
AFAICT, there’s no hard consensus here; I’ve seen both patterns, and I haven’t seen either pattern disproportionately criticized. As you say, separating distinct thoughts into multiple posts maximizes the potential clarity of feedback provided through voting. In the case of edits, it also causes the new thought to appear in the Recent Comments queue, which some people read; this makes the new thought more visible to those people.