You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gjm comments on LessWrong could grow a lot, but we're doing it wrong. - Less Wrong Discussion

51 Post author: Epiphany 20 August 2012 05:21AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (106)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gjm 21 August 2012 11:34:47PM *  1 point [-]

However, that can happen whether it grows quickly or slowly.

Yes. It's an issue regardless. But if pursuing a strategy of rapid growth guarantees an influx of negative-net-value-to-LW new users, it's probably a bad thing. (We will all die eventually, but I still prefer there to be fewer mass murders.)

I wonder whether you think this idea would work

I don't have a good enough mental model of the typical first-time visitor to LW to have a strong opinion. What I do think likely is that either it wouldn't work or it would work at the cost of getting rid of that rapid growth you were hoping for. Because I think it's likely that rapid growth by increasing visitor retention implies the sort of change in LW's demographics that I described.

I think it would be a heck of a lot more effective if specific feedback was provided

I have proposed something similar myself. The UI would be tricky to get right. It might well make LW a better place (or it might not; these things have a way of producing unexpected consequences). But I don't see how it would do much to solve the problem I described, if (as I suspect but don't claim to know) it really is a problem.

what if it took, say, three months and X number of posts before you're allowed to vote?

Might work. Has anyone reading this got experience of such systems? (The obvious concern is that it would drive away "good" users as effectively as it would drive away "bad" ones, so that it would slow growth without actually making the overall pattern of growth any more favourable.)

I figured you would all let me know what you wanted and if growth wasn't it, you'd shoot me down.

According to my quick count, 28 different people have commented here [EDITED to add: not counting "metatroll"], of whom 7 seemed definitely in favour of growth (perhaps having thought it through, perhaps just because it's a sort of default goal), one seemed definitely against growth, and 6 seemed definitely skeptical (i.e., saying "growth might not be what we want", basically my position). The other 14 expressed no opinion on the matter that I could detect. Make of that what you will.

Has anyone thought much about what would improve the quality of discussion?

I think a lot of people have, but so far as I know no one (here or elsewhere) has a silver bullet that ensures that a community of unusual people will retain its distinctively valuable characteristics as it grows. (Or for that matter as it doesn't.)

Comment author: beoShaffer 22 August 2012 12:04:13AM *  0 points [-]

what if it took, say, three months and X number of posts before you're allowed to vote?

Might work. Has anyone reading this got experience of such systems? (The obvious concern is that it would drive away "good" users as effectively as it would drive away "bad" ones, so that it would slow growth without actually making the overall pattern of growth any more favourable.)

I'm not sure if I like the basic idea, but tying it to the new users' karma would favor good users over bad (for certain values of good).

Comment author: gjm 22 August 2012 08:29:37AM 1 point [-]

(Your quoting is slightly broken.)

Hacker News uses this sort of system: there are thresholds for things like being able to vote, being able to downvote, etc., and they are all based on your karma score. The same is true on Stack Overflow, though that's a very different kind of site.

Both of them see frequent complaints that they're going downhill, but it's hard to be sure whether that's anything more than standard "the world was better in my young days" thinking (which I think results from a general tendency to remember good things better than bad things).

Comment author: beoShaffer 22 August 2012 07:26:05PM 0 points [-]

Frustratingly, the help doesn't say how to do nested quotes.

Comment author: gjm 22 August 2012 09:54:23PM *  2 points [-]

Hmm, let's experiment.

This line is preceded by gt sp gt sp.

This line is preceded by gt sp.

This line is normal.

This line is preceded by gt gt sp.

This line is preceded by gt sp.

This line is normal.

All those lines are separated by blank lines. (Not doing so produces bad results.)

Comment author: beoShaffer 22 August 2012 10:33:19PM 0 points [-]

Ok, I think I have it working.