= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
duckduckMOO comments on Pascal's wager - 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 (30)
Is the spacing less annoying now? It wasn't at random: it had 4 gaps between topics, 2 between points and one in a few minor places were I just wanted to break it up. The selection of that scheme was pretty much random though. I just spaced it like I would read it out loud. Which was kind of stupid. I can't expect people to read it in my voice. Anyway is this any better?
Got rid of the "and I think quite good." I just meant I liked it enough to want to share it in a discussion post. I assume that's not the interpretation that was annoying people. How did people read it that made it a crackpot signal?
No. The spacing is just as annoying. It still looks random. Use section titles, bulleted lists, etc. as appropriate, not more space between paragraphs.
But I don't think that will fix this article. The content is just as rambling and random.
Re "and I think quite good": this should -- literally -- go without saying. Anyone who posts something thinks it good enough to post.
Or is running a controlled experiment.
To be fair, every post involved there was by someone who thought it good enough to post. The quality of posts wasn't being manipulated - the first comment was.
Consider adopting the 'headings and subheadings' practice.
Just wanted to positively reinforce you for reading the earlier criticism on spacing, and editing accordingly. It's great that you have the habit of listening and constructively responding to feedback!
Like the other people here have said, this still has a ways to go before it gets to the usual standard of readability for a post (where the reader should have an interesting reason at the start to keep reading, and know at each point where they are in the scheme of the argument), but that's something one learns how to do by practice.
(This also applies to the criticism about the content being meandering and confused: several times I've started writing a post, then realized that I didn't have a clear idea where I was going, and so I left it as a draft for the time being. Once I'd written a few substantive posts, I had a pretty good idea which drafts deserved to be posted and which ones needed further development. In the latter case, starting a conversation on an Open Thread is a good way to help shape one's thinking for a post.)
What people disliked was the bad grammar. If you want people to react positively to what you write, you need to make it easy to read. This includes using good spelling (which you do seem to have managed to do) and good grammar.
Exactly.
Spelling checks are mandatory. For starters: "followability" is not a word. Neither is "dun" (well, actually it is, but not one that means anything relevant to your article). "Pascal" should always be capitalized.
The bit about the article starting as a comment can go away -- who cares? And if we do, is that really the best thing to lead off with, to catch the reader's interest? The first sentence after that is an awkward, rambly, run-on sentence.
And so on, and so forth. This article needs a lot of editing, at a bare minimum. I'm also fairly sure the content isn't that interesting, but the lack of editing was sufficient to make me stop reading.