LESSWRONG
LW

by Oxidize
1 min read
A
312

4

I was first introduced to Lesswrong about 6 months ago, and started posting about 4 months ago, but my posts and comments have been downvoted which has caused me to become unable interact with this community. What am I not understanding? The posts I make just get downvoted and there's no feedback so I don't know how to improve. I read recommended guides for beginners, and I've been open-minded with all my posts & comments. I think maybe I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the people who comprise the Lesswrong community. Their goals, their knowledge, their intentions, etc. I understand that a lot of people in this community come from academia and I do not, so maybe that's part of the reason? Or maybe there is a set of norms I'm unaware of because I'm new? I'm guessing almost no one will be able to see this, but if you do, can you enlighten me about what I'm not seeing? 

Personal Blog

4

Why am I getting downvoted on Lesswrong?
New Answer
New Comment


3 Answers sorted by
top scoring

cata

97

I just skimmed your downvoted post and linked doc. (I agree that there was no way I would have clicked through to the doc outside the context of this question.)

The post read like a big series of platitudes, or applause lights. The claims were too generic to be interesting to me. I agree with some, I don't agree with others, but either way it wasn't giving me anything I couldn't generate myself.

The linked doc actually started out strong. You say that you have personally experienced how your own behavior and thinking change when you are materially deprived, and that you actually tested different kinds of deprivations and rewards on yourself over time, and observed patterns. That's very interesting! I don't know anything about that. I want to hear what you experienced and think about whether it has anything to do with my life and what I can see. I would upvote a post about that.

I think you're writing these things to try to pitch your project, but people on LW mostly aren't sitting around wanting to get pitched on projects. They want to read intellectually stimulating new ideas. And it's not a convincing pitch either unless you show people you have the goods.

[-]Oxidize50

Thank you for this comment. I view writing through a marketing context, but I didn't realize that the people on Lesswrong are this motivated by intellectual stimulation/learning. In retrospect it seems obvious, but nonetheless I'm glad to have learned from my mistakes. I'll prioritize using curiosity & supplying new information from now on with more concise references to contexts/background information from now on. And I'll avoid the kind of emotionally targeted tone/structure that I used in my first post.

Reply

datawitch

50

From glancing at your profile it seems like you're not actually being downvoted that much, except for the first post which is at -13. I didn't downvote it but I found the post not especially well written, and rather light on details. It felt like a politician's speech and I was hoping for more concrete proposals? (tbf I didn't read the linked doc).

[-]Oxidize20

Thanks for the advice. I want to learn how to make better posts in the future so I'll try to figure out how to improve.

 Should I not have began by talking about background information & explaining my beliefs?
- Should I have the audience had contextual awareness and gone right into talking about solutions?


 Or was the problem more along the lines of writing quality, tone, or style? 
-  What type of post do you like reading? 
- Would it be alright if I asked for an example so that I could read it?


Also you're right. Looking back that... (read more)

Reply
4Viliam
I would suggest choosing a less grandiose topic. Something more specific; perhaps something that you know well. ("What is true of one apple may not be true of another apple; thus more can be said about a single apple than about all the apples in the world." -- source) As a reader I prefer it when the posts are self-contained; when I get a value from the post even without clicking any of the links. The information linked should be optional to the experience. Looking at the topics of my posts... books I have read (1, 2, 3), things happening in the rationality community (1, 2), some psychological things I have noticed (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), questions (1, 2, 3, 4), things that started like comments but turned out to be too long (1, 2, 3), playing with math (1, 2). There is no theory of everything, no proposal to fix humanity, etc.
3Oxidize
Thanks for the advise. I see how the linked posts are a lot more specific than the one I made. I'll try making some posts confined to specific domains of psychology, maybe in a very detailed & rational structure. Then maybe I can link to those posts in a larger post where I use those understandings/pieces of information to make a claim about a vehicle for using the information for practical change in the real world. I'm not sure I'm capable of giving up on macro-directional efforts like attempts to improve humanity as a whole, but I'll try and change the way I structure writings to be self-contained and linked externally for supplemental information as opposed to the entire post being dependent on a linked doc.
2Viliam
Yes, this seems to me like a good strategy for posting on LW. Start with smaller, then generalize (and link to previous posts when needed). One advantage is that when things go wrong -- if one of the smaller articles is strongly rejected -- it gives you an opportunity to stop and reflect. Maybe you were wrong, in which case it is good that you didn't write the more general article (because it would be downvoted). Maybe the LW readers were wrong, but that still means that you should communicate your (smaller, specific) point better, before moving to more general claims. Another advantage is that, if your circumstances or priorities change, and suddenly you don't have time to write for LW anymore, the smaller self-contained articles still provide value. I have seen people make a mistake of posting a long outline first (which sometimes even got lots of upvotes), and then part 2 got downvoted because readers fundamentally disagreed with it... and now what? If someone disagrees with the part 2, they probably won't be happy about part 3 which builds upon the part 2, so now every part would get a downvote.
4lsusr
I recommend you find a post you like that was well received and copy its format. I agree with datawitch that your post "felt like a politician's speech". Your post contains vague grandiose claims, but is lacking on specific factual claims. While that kind of writing does occasionally succeed on this website if you pander hard enough, I recommend against it. Good writing on this website tends to be specific, concrete and objective. I notice you use creative writing styles. While there is value in that, I don't think that's a good way for you, personally, to begin writing on this website. I recommend you learn to write in a more detached, factual style first, before embellishing it in that way. That's because poetic writing can too easily hide unclear thinking. Just look at the karma number next to each post. Ignore any post with less than 50 karma. Pay special attention to any post with more than 100 karma. That will show you more-or-less-objectively what people on this website like reading. If you want to read the best of the best, check out curated. In this context, there are two good uses of links: * Linking to a definition of a term, so that people who don't know the term can find it and people who do know the term don't have to read the definition. * Linking to supplemental information for people that really liked your post and who want to read more. I recommend you do not link to a doc expecting people to read it. People will read a linked document only after they trust you a lot. The best source of trust is "What I just read was really worthwhile". If the first thing you write is "go read this other doc", then you have failed to establish the prerequisite trust.
3Oxidize
Thank you for the advise. I'll switch my writing style to be more objective & I'll try to remember to avoid ineffective pandering/creative styles. I'll continue linking at the end of posts when necessary, but I'll try to make sure my initial post provides value to readers. Thanks for including the link. I'll read through these and use the posts to further my understanding of the community.
2Rafael Harth
This is a completely wrong way to think about it, imo. A post isn't this thing with inherent terminal value that you can optimize for regardless of content. If you think you have an insight that the remaining LW community doesn't have, then and only then[1] should you consider writing a post. Then the questions become is the insight actually valid, and did I communicate it properly. And yes, the second one is huge topic -- so if in fact you have something value to say, then sure you can spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to do that, and what e.g. Lsuser said is fine advise. But first you need to actually have something valuable to say. If you don't, then the only good action is to not write a post. Starting off by just wanting to write something is bound to be not-fruitful. ---------------------------------------- 1. yes technically there can be other goals of a post (like if it's fiction), but this is the central case ↩︎

Dagon

40

I only see one downvoted post, and a bunch of comments and a few posts with very low voting at all.  That seems pretty normal to me, and the advice of "lurk for quite a bit, and comment occasionally" is usually good for any new users on any site.

[-]lsusr62

While this is true, I applaud Oxidize for learning the fast way. Most users of this site do only the "lurk for quite a bit", and never attempt to write great top-level posts. Ultimately, there is no harm done by crashing and burning a few times—as long as you're nice about it (which Oxidize has been).

Reply
Moderation Log
A
30