= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Newsome comments on Reflections on a Personal Public Relations Failure: A Lesson in Communication - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (38)
Are first posts generally low quality? My first post was +50, and in my memory I recall most getting something like +10. Then again I do mostly remember just good posts.
My first post was embarrassingly bad. It was downvoted when new, and remains in the low single digits.
Should I resist the temptation to check it out?
I didn't delete it or anything. You can read it if you want. It's a thing I wrote and I tend to leave those where they lie, lest I go too far in the other direction and only have a four-day window of stuff I still like online at any given time.
Scanning back through the recent posts, I saw 4 or 5 first posts at 0 or lower in the last 2 months, out of about 20 first posts. (I have the feeling that there were a few more whose authors deleted them in the vain hopes of getting karma restored, but I could be wrong.)
Obviously, people who have been lurking for a while and hanging out with Less Wrongers in real life have a pretty good expected karma on their first post.
And I would expect that people who are already veteran commenters when they post for the first time probably have even better prospects.