A proven model of what, though? I don't read Hacker News (or reddit, or 4chan), because every time I've looked around those places, I've seen nothing worth staying for, just shiny distraction.
If Less Wrong has declined, what has it declined from and what do people want it raised to?
All I'm saying is that we have a supply problem, and you're raising a demand issue. Also, the issue you're raising is based on an anecdote that seems sufficiently niche as to not be worth the tradeoff (i.e. not solving the supply issue). If you have evidence of generality of the demand for summaries, I'd like to see it.
Not seeing a summary is a sufficient inconvenience that I ignore the link.
But what does it matter if 1% of all links that should end up here, actually do? Hacker news is a proven model, people not clicking without summaries isn't an issue.
Growth in survey answers, presumably? We're talking about hits here, which includes the lurking masses. And should be a much more solid number, if we have it.
And growth in status of the survey.
That's interesting-- you've got 3 karma points. When I post a link, I usually add an excerpt or summary on utilitarian grounds, since I think it's less total work for me to give some indication of why other people should be interested than for a number of people to click the link than for me (who's already read the link and know something about it) to check it out.
I gather the media thread isn't a good enough place for posting links.
I was, for a period, a major submitter of links to Hacker News. The process for doing that with the bookmarklet they provide is literally two clicks and 10 seconds. How many of each is it for LW today?
B-- posting links to articles-- is already possible. It's fallen out of fashion, I'm not sure why. So far as I remember, link posts in Discussion went over well enough so long as there was a substantial excerpt or a summary rather than just the link.
That's the problem. Posting a summary is a trivial (or not so trivial) inconvenience.
Earlier today I wanted to quantify whether lesswrong has stopped being a well kept garden.
Before you look at the numbers, what metrics are you going to use to quantify this?
posts per month, upvotes per month. (i understand score is positive minus negative, but it cancels out). potentially comments per month too, but I didn't fetch that data. substitute month for your preferred granularity of course.
whatever team state matters. maybe online/offline, maybe emotional states, maybe doing biofeedback (hormones? alpha waves?) but cross-team. maybe just 'how many production bugs we've had this week'.
but if we're talking startups, I'd probably look at where the money is and go there. Can this be applied to groups of traders? c-level executives? medical teams? maybe some other target group are both flush with cash and early adopters of new tech?
What other applications for groups of people can you imagine, apart from having a sense of each other's position?
whatever team state matters. maybe online/offline, maybe emotional states, maybe doing biofeedback (hormones? alpha waves?) but cross-team. maybe just 'how many production bugs we've had this week'.
Stratton's perceptual adaptation experiments a century ago have shown that the brain can adapt to different kinds of visual information, e.g. if you wear glasses that turn the picture upside down, you eventually adjust and start seeing it right side up again. And recently some people have been experimenting with augmented senses, like wearing an anklet with cell phone vibrators that lets you always know which way is north.
I wonder if we can combine these ideas? For example, if you always carry a wearable camera on your wrist and feed the information to a Google Glass-like display, will your brain eventually adapt to having effectively three eyes, one of which is movable? Will you gain better depth perception, a better sense of your surroundings, a better sense of what you look like, etc.?
I've thought about taking this idea further.
Think of applying the anklet idea to groups of people. What if soccer teams could know where their teammates are at any time, even if they can't see them? Now apply this to firemen. or infantry. This is the startup i'd be doing if I wasn't doing what I'm doing. plugging data feeds right into the brain, and in particular doing this for groups of people, sounds like the next big frontier.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
It's a frequent complaint (and not just by me) when people post links without summaries.
Personally, if someone wants me to read something, they'd better tell me what it is first, or I just ignore it.
Complaint isn't actually a high enough barrier. If I had a waiter serve me breakfast every morning in bed, and suddenly I had to go to the kitchen for it, you bet I'd complain. The question is, would people not visit links based on the title alone?
In any case, I've explained this enough times that I think I've done as much as I could have. I'll just leave it at this.