I have become very used to the interface here and the various ways it can be manipulated, so I prefer it greatly even if this is just due to inertia. Glad to see more than 6 names on the Last 30 Days list. But it’s clear that this is a dead zone and I’ve become resigned to the idea that this will soon be gone.
I do enjoy what’s going on at LW2 even though it’s still open beta, a bit broken in a few areas and cluttered by too many specific requests and follow-up about personal preferences for site look and feel. And moderator chat that really feels like it can be kept behind closed doors—I hope this is just a feature of beta that will be ironed out. And I fully applaud the approach to trolls (so far anyway).
Overall it’s fun to see people jockeying for the position of Next Great Poster Who Will Lead Us From Darkness, especially those who aren’t trying to copy Previous Heroes. Some falling terribly short but it’s interesting to see the variety of voices. It does not seem to be heading to an obvious local minimum, something I worried about in the early days of LW2.0. Maybe a few local minima but that’s fine with me.
Thank you very much. I read LW primarily for the discussions that are spurred by posts/articles and the comments are effectively impossible for me to read with the standard interface. On a small glance/browse I’m very encouraged about trying Greaterwrong as my regular reading mode.
Please keep posting here. Your powers of persuasion are amazing.
Sorry, I used the ambiguous term “traffic”, meant “amount of new discussion/comments” rather than web traffic.
were it not for curi’s recent flurry there would almost be nothing here.
I went down the rabbit hole of your ensuing discussion and it seems to have broken LW, but didn’t look like you were very convinced yet. Thanks for taking one for the team.
Another take: This site is dead with practically no traffic. LW2.0 has various issues and missing features: from a development team perspective it’s still in a lengthy beta phase but practically speaking and from a general user viewpoint it can be considered to have fully replaced this site.
You could also simply continue working on the review: you are clearly motivated to explore these issues deeper so why not start fleshing out the paper?
Note that I said “continue” rather than start. The barrier is often not the ideas themselves but getting it written in something approaching a complete paper. this is still the issue for me and I have 50+ peer reviewed papers in the past 20 years (although not in this field).
The recommendation by “someone else” is anything but anonymous, adamzerner’s comment quotes and links directly from Matthew Butterick, author of the online book that provides said guidance (and also explicitly makes the point about print vs. online).
While I fully agree with you about strong distaste for the visual design of LW2 (at least using default display settings in the current beta) you have failed to make a valid argument here.
I can’t get a rss feed specifically for featured posts right now can I ?
My vision is not great and I simply cannot see the difference between quoted text and normal text in comments.
I find it very difficult to find and follow discussions on the new site. The content is very slow to load for me (on various devices) and I’ve given up rather than trying to work my way down.
The scoring system doesn’t make sense to me but this may just be a matter of getting used to it / users settling into some kind of routine. Anyway easy enough for me to select “most recent” and squint past the scores based on other users’ ratings for now.
I’m also embarrassed by the term “Sunshine Regiment”. I can see what you’re trying to do but it has an incredibly strong negative impact on me whenever I see it.
i do statistical consulting as part of my day job responsibilities, i’m afraid to say this is not how it works.
if you came to me with this question i would roll back to ask what exactly you are trying to achieve with the analyses, before getting into the additional constraints you want to include. unfortunately it’s far more challenging if the data owner comes to the statistician after the data are collected rather than before (when principles of experimental design as ilya mentioned can be considered to achieve ability to successfully answer those questions using statistical methods).
that said, temporarily ignoring the additional constraints you mentioned (e.g. whether and how to transform data; exponential decay and what that actually means with respect to student evaluation scores; magic word “bayes”) perhaps a useful search term would be “item response theory”.
Unfortunately, due to the shape of modern web development
Unfortunately, due to the shape of modern web development
What does that even mean :))
Have you given some thought towards numbering these ? Similar to how newsletters do ?
It might help if one day it gets archived and Numbering them also gives a good sense of advancement.
Also where else do you post this ? (except for discord and r/ssc)
Is there a pdf version available for The Codex as it appears on lesserwrong ? I see it’s different from the Library of Alexandria.
People sure like to talk about meta topics.
This one is also attractive in that primes are not repeated.
Drexlarian molecular nanotechnology?
I think Lumifer can be annoying as hell at times. But has been entirely consistent from the very start and has continued to engage in entirely the same way with whatever members are posting here.
Perhaps the different post rating system in LW 2.0 (if successfully launched and managed) will allow members who don’t like this sort of thing to more easily avoid or hide from this kind of dialogue but I expect (hope?) Lumifer will remain immune to shifts in the incentive structure.