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.

CBHacking comments on [Short, Meta] Should open threads be more frequent? - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Metus 18 December 2014 11:41PM

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

Comments (26)

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

Comment author: CBHacking 23 December 2014 02:11:34AM 0 points [-]

If one operates on the goal of "I want somebody to see this, ideally soon, but I don't want it occupying a whole slot of the discussion list for <however long>", then it seems like a reasonable idea to use an open thread which is not nearing expiration. A lot of the stuff posted in OTs is basically personal - stuff that other people are much less likely to care about responses to than you are - and making a new post (even in discussion) feels spammy for that in a way that posting in a OT doesn't.

I personally like the suggestion of having a section just for open threads, where things that people would post as a top-level comment in any given OT can instead be made a top-level post there. It would iterate quickly, of course, but that's not necessarily bad; every top-level would have some time in the limelight.

Alternatively, is there a reason the OTs need to expire? Obviously they run the risk of getting extremely long to load if there are too many comments, but surely that's a problem the codebase can cope with. It already highlights new (posted since your last visit to a thread) comments, including new top-level ones. Is there a way to skip to the first/next new comment in a thread?

Meta question, on the other hand: is the issue of these cyclic waves of OT activity sufficiently problematic to warrant significant changes? (My feeling is yes, but mostly because the cost seems minimal; I guess I don't feel like the issue itself is that severe.)