= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Armok_GoB comments on Link Sharing Thread - April '11 - 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 (87)
Ok, why was this downvoted? There is no way you've actually checked out a significant number of them yet. Is someone actually down-voting just because I posted MANY links without caring about the quality of the stuff they link to?
No downvotes from me, but I can imagine that someone might think that people posting long lists of basically random stuff from their browsing history they themselves found interesting without any kind of commentary on what they are about, whether there's an unifying theme to the list or why LW readers in particular might be interested in the links is not something they would like to see more of here.
Even with the descriptions, that's a pretty random list of things. I haven't even clicked any of them - there's some good stuff in the ones I recognize, but also a lot of stuff that doesn't seem to have anything to do with LW at all (Hyperbole and a half? Really? Allie's funny, sure, but if she has any rationalist tendencies I haven't noticed 'em, and her kind of humor isn't even the same general type as what seems to be popular here), so my overall impression is that you haven't done a very good job of filtering things, and the rest of the stuff probably isn't worth spending my time exploring.
Huh? Hyperbole and a half has a bunch of anecdotes that illustrate interesting human behaviour, that's totally relevant to LW.
There is the possibility that people who have an actual social life already knew that things I've learnt from there since so long they don't notice it's knowledge, that's probably the source of confusion.
Can you list some things you have learned from Hyperbole and a Half? Allie's a fantastic storyteller but I don't find her especially didactically inclined.
Not any explicit, declatative facts that I can think of, more an quantitative improvent in intuition about the kind of things humans might do.
This Is Why You'll Never Be an Adult has a clue about how grandiosity can make motivation collapse.
My Boyfriend Doesn't Have Ebola... Probably is good about the difficulties of communicating qualia.
However, I think they're mostly brilliantly funny about neurotic states of mind rather than an obvious rationalist resource.
how's not being obviously rational an argument against it? Linking rationalists to somehting they might have just rejected as irrelevant otherwise and pointing out how to learn from it seems more valuable than just pointing at somewhere so obvious they'd have found it themselves eventually no matter what.
I haven't downvoted, but I assume it is because it is overwhelming to the reader. I would second erratio's suggestion to post them separately, and add that this could happen over several months (assuming this thread idea takes off).
No shit, Sherlock!
My rule for posting links, anywhere on the web, not just here, is this: the reader must be told enough to know whether they are interested in following the link, without following the link. And please, keep it relevant to LessWrong.
I suspect you read the OP as meaning (down-voting (just because I posted MANY links (without caring about the quality...))), whereas I suspect the OP meant ((down-voting (just because I posted MANY links) (without caring about the quality...)).
That said, I completely agree with your main point.
Umm, then you either never post links to anything or you have a really bad case of Double Illusion of Transparency. You can try to provide evidence for if people are more or less likely to like the link, but only in very rare cases will the probability stray even outside 10%-90% probability for most people.
Oh, come on.
It's clear to me that a link with a description that lets me make even a 50%-accurate judgment, let alone a 90%-accurate judgment, of whether I'll like it is far more useful than a link with no description at all.
Do you disagree?
No, obviously not, I spend a fair amount of cognitive resources every day trying to sort through online content and am partial to norms conductive to that purpose indeed.
I just interpret "knowing without following the link" as "at least 99% sure it'll be worth it".