wedrifid comments on 2011 Survey Results - Less Wrong

94 Post author: Yvain 05 December 2011 10:49AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (513)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 December 2011 03:36:10AM 12 points [-]

So we can only prove that 519 people post on Less Wrong.

Where by 'prove' we mean 'somebody implied that they did on an anonymous online survey'. ;)

Comment author: Yvain 05 December 2011 03:16:27PM 13 points [-]

You mean, as opposed to that kind of proof where we end up with a Bayesian probability of exactly one? :)

Comment author: kilobug 05 December 2011 10:53:07AM 10 points [-]

Wouldn't it be (relatively) easy and useful to have a "stats" page in LW, with info like number of accounts, number of accounts with > 0 karma (total, monthly), number of comments/articles, ... ?

Comment author: XiXiDu 05 December 2011 11:24:26AM *  10 points [-]

Wouldn't it be (relatively) easy and useful to have a "stats" page in LW, with info like number of accounts, number of accounts with > 0 karma (total, monthly), number of comments/articles, ... ?

Nice idea! I am interested in such statistics.

Comment author: amcknight 06 December 2011 03:39:19AM 1 point [-]

This would allow for a running poll, if we want one.

Comment author: duckduckMOO 06 December 2011 01:58:15PM 0 points [-]

I think this is an underestimate if anything. People who skip the question might just not want to say and at least a few people who post didn't take the survey. I don't see how enough people could be motivated to put down a random score who don't post to make up for these possibilities.

I'd have preferred "at least 519."