= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Elo comments on Weirdness at the wiki - 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 (82)
This is a nicety; while appreciated it looks like you are trying to suck up to Nancy.
(taking into account what Lumifier said about the app) in your description;
Is the only thing you said are doing to be checking on what you're actually teaching. And it's something that has not happened yet. (granted these things take time). I read the entire post as; "nothing yet, but we want to - in these ways...".
depending on the method (if done with web content) could be described as A/B split testing. Which is standard these days for internet behaviour of groups spreading clickbait, not an accountable test.
I would suggest not taking Lumifer's description of his initial impression of the sign-up page as indicative of the app itself. I think there's sufficient evidence of Lumifer being not unbiased in describing Intentional Insights content. So consider checking out the app itself.
Here are the study proposals themselves, which you can evaluate yourself for whether they are A/B split testing: 1, 2.
EDIT Forgot to mention, my comment on the nature of NancyLebovitz's question had to do with my own desire to signal that this is a very important question to me, not give praise.