= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway 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)
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".