= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
GabrielDuquette 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)
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.