= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwillen comments on [Short, Meta] Should open threads be more frequent? - 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 (26)
For those who don't want to guess or dig into the source, the missing x axis unit is "minutes".
In other words, open threads die after about 4 days.
That's probably when people are like "I will rather wait for another open thread, so my comment has more visibility". If we will have open threads more frequently, that moment might just come sooner.
However, I am in favor of an experiment.
Posting near the end of an open thread's lifetime is (maybe) like cooperating near the end of an iterated prisoners' dilemma: others benefit (by having interesting discussions available more of the time) but you lose (by having what you post seen by fewer people).
One way one avoids this in IPD tournaments is by making the end uncertain (e.g., each turn after the 100th there's a 1% chance that the game ends). It would be interesting (though, frankly, probably not worth the effort) to randomize the starting of open threads in a similar way: e.g., once 3 days have elapsed, each hour a new thread gets started with probability 1%.