= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
falenas108 comments on Irrationality Game II - 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 (380)
This is getting a lot of downvotes, meaning lots of people agree. To those people: Although it does make us look more cultish, does that outweigh the good from the lack of connections between "cult" and "lesswrong" on google?
Edited to correct, I originally had a typo where I said it meant people disagree instead of agree.
This is the irrationality game. The downvotes mean people agree.
The second part of falenas108's comment ("To those people: Although it does make us look more cultish") makes me think that he/she knows this and simply mistyped 'disagree' instead of 'agree'.
Yeah, sorry. That's what I meant.
You should edit your original comment for clarity then.
Fixed.
This sounds like magical thinking about Google. Are you worried about people searching for the term "cult" finding Less Wrong? If not, what are you worried about exactly?
I'm pretty sure autocompletes are done on the basis of what people search for, not what keywords are present on a domain.
The main concern would be people already searching cult and lesswrong together, and coming up with articles like this one which would be very bad signaling.
The only people who search for lesswrong and cult are the people who have already heard of the connection.
Also the people who begin to search for...
"less wrong cryonics"
"less wrong charity"
"less wrong camp"
"less wrong cached thoughts"
"less wrong com"
"less wrong change your mind"
Given the rules of this thread, most of the downvotes are either expressing agreement, or perhaps a meta-disagreement with having the the topic discussed again.