= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jayson_Virissimo comments on Open thread, Dec. 15 - Dec. 21, 2014 - 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 (309)
If only publicly verifiable/falsifiable predictions were permitted, would you have stuck around?
I think the issue is not about allowing/disallowing such predictions but having good tagging that tags all those predictions with "private life" and then the option of people to block that tag the way you can block tags on stackexchange.
Yes, one of the most common issues people have brought up with PredictionBook is the lack of tagging in general which also makes it harder to search for predictions. I tried at one point to add comments to my predictions of the form [tag] but it didn't work very well and no one else was doing it. If there were a formal way to do it with searchable categories that would be really helpful.
Rather than simply forbidding them, I'd suggest having various sharing options ranging from "public" over "people I invite" to "just me."
If anyone is going to implement such a thing, I think it'd be important to have separate calibration curves for each class of publicity.
It has a "just me" mode that the authors of those questions should use, but don't.
No; that's too restrictive. It just needed more moderation and a lot more love.