= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Rhetoric for the Good - 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 (289)
If you want the "back cover blurb" for a 600-page book, that's an entirely sensible request... but it seems weird to criticize a 600-page book on the grounds that it isn't as accessible as a back-cover blurb. Back-cover blurbs can exist in addition to the books; they needn't be instead of.
Right. I'm only criticizing the quality of the blurb. I'm not suggesting scientific papers adopt a different editorial standard... although I'd be completely psyched if they did.
EDIT: If LW could convince a million people only to remember that their brains frequently mess up and then try to cover their own tracks, that would be a gigantic victory.
Agreed.
What I challenge is the idea that most posts/comments here ought to make good cover blurbs.
If I need a cover blurb, it seems more productive to say "Hey, I need a cover blurb, any recommendations?" than to point to arbitrary contributions and say "This isn't a very good cover blurb."
My turn to agree. What can I say, I got emotional when it seemed to me like everyone chose to nitpick Luke's advice rather than heed it.
My question remains: can LW produce Blurb Ninjas?
Cool; glad we got that cleared up.
As for Blurb Ninjas... see comment elsewhere for my thoughts on how to encourage that.