= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on On moving posts from Main to Discussion - 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 (44)
As far as I know, I'm the one who does this. I can try to leave comments, though it's not clear what benefit is thereby gained under those circumstances. I will not always have time to explain.
Thankyou, it sounds like it'll be worth just making the "Moved to discussion" comment just for convenience when navigating the site and preventing confusion. I certainly wouldn't expect that to oblige you to engage in discussion as to why. Usually the reason is obvious and other readers are happy to explain for you.
Another advantage of "moved to discussion" comments is that you train people's understanding of what belongs where and so reduce the need for you to fiddle around in the future. A rather pointed dog training analogy may apply.
It might help if the guidelines for what goes in which area were made more obvious and clarified. Then people could see what they were doing wrong.
It seems that over time a lot of stuff that used to go in main has moved into discussion, and former discussion into the open thread. Which is fine, provided everyone is using the same standard.
There aren't strict guidelines, but if something isn't much upvoted and/or doesn't seem very important, I'll move it to Discussion. Trying to post to Main is not a crime. On the other hand, moving things back from Discussion to Main after an editor moves them is a crime.
What about the reverse? Moving from discussion to Main once the author notices that not only his introspective evidence says the text is good, but also others?
I have been known to do that as well.
you read all posts?
Upvoted ones, usually.
I know my question sounded like "I doubt you read all posts", and I do, but regardless of that irrelevance, the important meaning should be: "Someone over 18 whose IQ looms large reads all posts?"
Isn't it a terrible use of your time?
Do you read posts before moving them out of Main?
I'm confused. Phil seems to indicate that it wasn't him who moved the post to main. Is there some other way that this could have occurred that does not require anyone to have been deceptive?
wedrifid has seen this, but for the benefit of others: this is now answered in the discussion behind the link in wedrifid's comment.
Vladimir Nesov does as well, from time to time. I'd say he always leaves comments, but then again how would I know :-).
I usually move the posts that get (or are clearly going to get) large negative ratings. The de facto policy seems to be that if a post is below +5 or so after a while, it can be moved from Main.
Like magazine editors, you could have a few stock phrases, like "I believe this is incorrect", "I believe this is not sufficiently important", "I believe this is not relevant to LessWrong", or "I believe this is poorly-written".
But if you don't have the time to explain, you surely don't have time to read an article and decide whether to move it to discussion.