= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on LessWrong 2.0 - LessWrong
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 (312)
Truth.
A datapoint: I am entirely uninterested in a read-only LW. On this basis it has to compete with the whole 'net and, well, I don't think it will win.
From my point of view "that desire" depends mostly on the quality of people you can talk to. You don't need a social website to read blog posts.
A social club version of LW also has to compete with the whole net ;-)
IMO the best contributors on LW (Yvain, Alicorn, Wei...) joined mostly because of the quality of Eliezer's posts, not because of the people. There were hardly any people back then. I might be misremembering, but I think Yvain started posting when LW was still read-only, by emailing his posts to Eliezer or something.
Yes, but here it has a pronounced advantage. Out of all more or less active forums known to me, LW has the least idiots. That's a huge plus. Besides, I like weirdness.
Yes, and at that point EY was "people" they wanted to talk to.
FWIW my feeling is much the same as Lumifer's. However, people like me and Lumifer may not be the ones whose feelings matter here -- if all the best people have abandoned LW because the quality is low, people who are still active participants probably (1) aren't the best people, (2) aren't producing the high quality of stuff that LW needs to attract and keep the best people, and (3) in any case aren't the ones LW is having most trouble retaining.
(Counterargument: "first do no harm". Countercounterargument, kinda: if LW is made read-only, who cares whether anyone is or isn't interested in it? it will make no difference.)