= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Grognor comments on Open Thread, March 16-31, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (114)
Because the number of quotes already used is increasing, and the number of LW users is increasing, I propose that the next quotes thread should include a new rule: use the search feature to make sure your quote has not already been posted.
For a balance, once every two years there could be a thread for already posted quotes. Like "choose the best quote ever", to filter the best from the best.
Then the winning quotes could randomly appear on the LW homepage.
It's already considered bad form to repeat a quote. I thought this was one of the listed rules, but since it isn't (at least in the current thread) I agree that it should be added.
No repeats should be in the rules, but a posting on the rationality quotes pages is not and should not be a certification that the posters has investigated and is confident that there is no repeat.
If I had to investigate that hard before posting on that thread, I'd never do it because it wouldn't be worth the investment of time. And the real consequences for repeating a rule are so low. In short:
Good rule.
Bad rule, as phrased.
It certainly should be a certification that poster copied some keywords from the quote into the search box and pressed enter.
If you are referring specifically to the literal meaning of 'sure' then fine. If you refer to the more casual meaning of "yeah, I checked this with search" then I disagree and would suggest that you implement the "it's not worth it for you" contingency.
I've always found the search engine quite clunky, and of questionable reliability. I think an actually explicit social norm will solve most of the problem. That said, I won't be put out if posting rationality quotes is not worth my effort.
So far as I know, the rule is just that a quote shouldn't have appeared in a quotes thread, but if it's appeared elsewhere, it's ok to post it in a quotes thread.
A cached thought: We need a decent search engine, and the more posts and comments accumulate, the more we need it.
I don't. Posting rationality quotes is one of the few things new members can do effectively, and new members are the least liable to know of any social norms. That's why I said make the search feature explicit. Also, it's good at finding quotes, since exact words are used, if at all possible (which is why it's not called "Rationality Paraphrases").
I suspect most of our disagreement is about how bad it is for there to be repeats. At the level of bad I assign, making the norm explicit is sufficient to diminish the problem sufficiently. You think the downside is a bit worse, so you support a more intrusive, but more effective, solution.