[...evaporative cooling effect...] This isn’t very surprising as this is the common trajectory of every community that rapidly grows in size.
It would have taken a super-human effort to retain the same level of quality going from 100 to 1000 users, let alone from 1000 to 10000, and so on. So I don’t think that would have been a fair expectation to place on the moderators, or anyone else involved, of a decade ago.
I agree that it must be a massive undertaking to go from 100 to 10000 users. However, I question why it should be a good thing, in and by itself. The question that would determine if growth is good or not, should be related to the goals and purpose of LW. (wrote more about it in my post) That would be akin to growth for growth’s sake, which sounds weird to me as a metric of success.
If quality is even a tiny bit diluted, isn’t that a net loss, regardless of the quantifiable gain in members?
What I wish for is a conscious and intentional decision regarding what kind of ‘temperature’ one wants LW to have, and then strive to achieve that temperature.
Consequently, to talk about the evaporative cooling effect not as some force of nature, but the result of choices. The goal being not only to make the choices conscious, but also to make them coherent with a precise purpose and relevant sub-goals.
So far, I haven’t seen any good answers to this, but I am new, so might be a lot I haven’t read. However, the FAQ for LW is way too vague regarding where the site is headed. With this kind of growth, however, it can head in many different directions. So, which is it going to be?
I would also like to see the community keep going, but I would also like to see the issue of specifying purpose and aligning sub-goals with purpose be taken seriously. If the parameters of the community change, it is not longer the same community, even when it is bearing the same name. And from the birth of LW till now, there seems to have been a lot of changes, some of which I assume meant that LW fundamentally changed Identity.
And instead of that just happening, isn’t it better to actually say: This is what we want to achieve, this is how we will do it and what we will select when adding new members, and then work towards it? Then ‘success’ would be a measurable metric, instead of a vague and unknown one.
What I wish for is a conscious and intentional decision regarding what kind of ‘temperature’ one wants LW to have, and then strive to achieve that temperature.
This may be possible via a private club type membership system, where there’s a capped number of possible members, along with some kind of vetting process. Though I doubt the actual practical effects would be net positive, at least for a public forum.
This may be possible via a private club type membership system, where there’s a capped number of possible members, along with some kind of vetting process. Though I doubt the actual practical effects would be net positive, at least for a public forum.
If ‘public forum’ is the right temperature for LW, it is not in opposition to my point. My argument is to make purpose, sub-goals and potential ‘vetting’ streamlined, in order to clarify success-metrics and also have a uniform direction, instead of a lot of unwritten and unconscious ideas forming the future LW. For users to be part of and to directly contribute to a clear goal, and not just serve some vague idea of something, and for this goal to also serve the users joining that specific goal.
One issue with having a vague and broad goal, is that the goal would fit a long list of different iterations. With as broad a goal as it is now, the iteration Private club type with membership or anyone is welcome, isn’t mutually excluded. But which of the iterations are LW specifically encouraging and supporting? What is the identity of LW?
LessWrong is a community dedicated to improving our reasoning and decision-making. We seek to hold true beliefs and to be effective at accomplishing our goals. More generally, we want to develop and practice the art of human rationality.
To that end, LessWrong is a place to 1) develop and train rationality, and 2) apply one’s rationality to real-world problems.
The needs of beginners, amateurs, intermediates, experts and masters are very specific when it comes to what constituents a useful and nurturing environment to ‘develop and train rationality’. There might be some slight overlaps, for various reasons, but to “be effective at accomplishing our goals”, there must be specific goals that need accomplishing. And the environment that enables one group to thrive, might be the opposite of what the other needs, and ignoring that is detrimental to both.
Meaning that LW might be ‘the best place’, but it isn’t the best place because it is giving everyone on the different levels the unique environments they need to thrive, it only means that it is ‘the best place’ when compared to what is available. When people have left LW, I imagine them having recognized this, that even though it doesn’t specify it explicitly, implicitly the needs of specific groups are ignored or not acknowledged. And when a site opens to a lot of new members, without specific selection, at some point there will be a very significant balance shift in one or two directions, creating dynamics and shifts in balance, even without any explicit changes in direction or form.
I am arguing for a clear metric for measuring success, so that it is actually even possible to improve effectiveness in accomplishing goals. As it stands now, the goal of LessWrong is so vague, it is ruining functional reasoning and decision-making, simply through its lack of clarity and specifications.
Hello M.Y.Zuo,
I agree that it must be a massive undertaking to go from 100 to 10000 users. However, I question why it should be a good thing, in and by itself. The question that would determine if growth is good or not, should be related to the goals and purpose of LW. (wrote more about it in my post)
That would be akin to growth for growth’s sake, which sounds weird to me as a metric of success.
If quality is even a tiny bit diluted, isn’t that a net loss, regardless of the quantifiable gain in members?
What I wish for is a conscious and intentional decision regarding what kind of ‘temperature’ one wants LW to have, and then strive to achieve that temperature.
Consequently, to talk about the evaporative cooling effect not as some force of nature, but the result of choices. The goal being not only to make the choices conscious, but also to make them coherent with a precise purpose and relevant sub-goals.
So far, I haven’t seen any good answers to this, but I am new, so might be a lot I haven’t read. However, the FAQ for LW is way too vague regarding where the site is headed. With this kind of growth, however, it can head in many different directions. So, which is it going to be?
I would also like to see the community keep going, but I would also like to see the issue of specifying purpose and aligning sub-goals with purpose be taken seriously. If the parameters of the community change, it is not longer the same community, even when it is bearing the same name. And from the birth of LW till now, there seems to have been a lot of changes, some of which I assume meant that LW fundamentally changed Identity.
And instead of that just happening, isn’t it better to actually say: This is what we want to achieve, this is how we will do it and what we will select when adding new members, and then work towards it? Then ‘success’ would be a measurable metric, instead of a vague and unknown one.
Kindly, but firmly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
This may be possible via a private club type membership system, where there’s a capped number of possible members, along with some kind of vetting process. Though I doubt the actual practical effects would be net positive, at least for a public forum.
If ‘public forum’ is the right temperature for LW, it is not in opposition to my point. My argument is to make purpose, sub-goals and potential ‘vetting’ streamlined, in order to clarify success-metrics and also have a uniform direction, instead of a lot of unwritten and unconscious ideas forming the future LW. For users to be part of and to directly contribute to a clear goal, and not just serve some vague idea of something, and for this goal to also serve the users joining that specific goal.
One issue with having a vague and broad goal, is that the goal would fit a long list of different iterations. With as broad a goal as it is now, the iteration Private club type with membership or anyone is welcome, isn’t mutually excluded. But which of the iterations are LW specifically encouraging and supporting? What is the identity of LW?
The needs of beginners, amateurs, intermediates, experts and masters are very specific when it comes to what constituents a useful and nurturing environment to ‘develop and train rationality’. There might be some slight overlaps, for various reasons, but to “be effective at accomplishing our goals”, there must be specific goals that need accomplishing. And the environment that enables one group to thrive, might be the opposite of what the other needs, and ignoring that is detrimental to both.
Meaning that LW might be ‘the best place’, but it isn’t the best place because it is giving everyone on the different levels the unique environments they need to thrive, it only means that it is ‘the best place’ when compared to what is available.
When people have left LW, I imagine them having recognized this, that even though it doesn’t specify it explicitly, implicitly the needs of specific groups are ignored or not acknowledged. And when a site opens to a lot of new members, without specific selection, at some point there will be a very significant balance shift in one or two directions, creating dynamics and shifts in balance, even without any explicit changes in direction or form.
I am arguing for a clear metric for measuring success, so that it is actually even possible to improve effectiveness in accomplishing goals. As it stands now, the goal of LessWrong is so vague, it is ruining functional reasoning and decision-making, simply through its lack of clarity and specifications.
Kindly, but firmly,
Caerulea-Lawrence