All of Habryka's Comments + Replies

LW Migration Announcement

All activity between now and 7:00PM on the page will be lost.

Leaving beta: Voting on moving to LessWrong.com

Hmm, you can see all recent posts on /daily on the new LW.

0Dagon3yTrue, after a brief confusing delay where you just see 5 days of "no posts found" while it loads. Is there an equivalent of the red mailbox that tells me someone replied to my comment?
Leaving beta: Voting on moving to LessWrong.com

Sorry for not being around more! We launched the Community/Meetup interface just before we announced the vote, so I've been busy polishing that up and making sure everything for that works.

Now that that system works more stably, I will be more responsive in answering questions about the vote and the transition, etc. And in general I check LW2 more often than here, so if you have questions asking over there will probably get you a faster response.

Re password reset: Yep, everything you said is correct, and it does seem reasonable to have a page with both d... (read more)

Leaving beta: Voting on moving to LessWrong.com

Oh, huh. I didn't realize this as a bug. Thanks for pointing it out!

We have plans to allow people better filtering options for comments and posts in general, somewhat similar to what greaterwrong has to show posts sorted by month and year. So that would fix this problem. I am hesitant to allow the serve to return more than 1000 comments on a single graphQL request though, simply because of server-load reasons. So a proper pagination approach would help with this, which would come with the better filtering and sorting I am imagining.

In general, I think it's very important to make the old content on the site discoverable and findable, and I definitely want to make sure we fix the kinds of bugs you brought up here.

0bogus3yAre you saying that Greater Wrong is currently requesting the whole 1000 comments history when you go to a user page and browse the user history? If so, I think you should get in contact with the Greater Wrong dev(s) and work on a solution that can work with the current pagination on that site. In practice, making sure that full comment history works on Greater Wrong is probably the easiest and quickest way to avert the perception of a regression from what LW1 makes available. Having a "proper" user history with monthly listings, etc. is a nice-to-have of course, but it does not strike me as critical.
Leaving beta: Voting on moving to LessWrong.com

The site should now work properly on Firefox 48. Are there any other browsers you use on which it still breaks?

0jjvt3yNow the login button opens the login popup correctly, but I still failed to reset my password. I tried to click the "Forgot password" -> popup asks me for email -> I enter it and click "RESET YOUR PASSWORD" -> error message "User not found" appears -> I enter username instead and click "RESET YOUR PASSWORD" -> error message "Invalid email" appears. (It doesn't seem to make any difference whether I enter my username or email or nothing in the first login popup.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my older firefox (10.0.4 ESR) the site loads extremely slowly and consumes several gigabytes of memory (some of it is freed after loading is complete) and these errors appear in the error console: * "can't redefine non-configurable property 'name'" in https://www.lesserwrong.com/84070395a9ed6ed856734634005a280abd590aba.js?meteor_js_resource=true [https://www.lesserwrong.com/84070395a9ed6ed856734634005a280abd590aba.js?meteor_js_resource=true] line 9 * "Fragment "LWPostsList" not registered." in https://www.lesserwrong.com/84070395a9ed6ed856734634005a280abd590aba.js?meteor_js_resource=true [https://www.lesserwrong.com/84070395a9ed6ed856734634005a280abd590aba.js?meteor_js_resource=true] line 113 * (+ too many warnings to list here) [edited to correct formating]
Leaving beta: Voting on moving to LessWrong.com

Yeah, we are working on browser compatibility. I actually just figured out what was causing your specific bug, so that one should be fixed within at least the next two or three days.

Some navigation aspects are definitely hard to make work with javascript completely disabled (example: The hamburger menu), but we should be able to make it so that the site fails gracefully when some javascript stuff doesn't work.

An alternative way to browse LessWrong 2.0

Yep, I agree with this. I've learned quite a few things from the GreaterWrong design and overall think that the LW2 UI will be significantly better because of that. It's great to have a platform that experiments in a very different direction from the main site.

11/07/2017 Development Update: LaTeX!

(i.e. There should be no further issues with LaTeX not rendering)

LW 2.0 Open Beta Live

Yeah, that's a bug. I am planning to remove the whole website field soon anyways.

Feedback on LW 2.0

Alas, I haven't been super much on top of support lately, so sorry for not responding.

Sorry for this happening. I mistook you for Eugine_Nier, who was spamposting with a bunch of highly political stuff right at the minute you made your first few comments. It looks like you accidentally posted a comment twice, and the one that you posted twice was one that commented on the relationship between the MTG wheel and Nazism (actually making an OK point, but my pattern match system immediately matched it to Eugine's other spam comments). That, together with the f... (read more)

Open thread, October 16 - October 22, 2017

We actually have plans for a more chat-like section of the site, though we haven't yet fully converged on an implementation. Here is the relevant section from the LessWrong 2 strategy doc:

Shortform (implementation unclear)

Many authors (including Eliezer) have requested a section of the site for more short-form thoughts, more similar to the length of an average FB post. It seems reasonable to have a section of the site for that, though I am not yet fully sure how it should be implemented.

Open thread, October 16 - October 22, 2017

Yep, though I do expect this to happen at least in its basic functionality by the end of the year, though we might not be able to get full feature parity before we move over towards the new site. I would be interested in getting a list of the most important features you see for our meetup functionality.

0Elo4y1. Being able to set a date and time for a meetup. (end time not desperately important) 2. Being able to set a geographical location for meetups. 3. When a meetup is created, local people are notified by email of the meetup. (every user has a location set) 4. A description of the meetup (freeform text) Bonus: .5. Being able to set a recurring meetup. At the end of the last meetup the organiser is sent a link via email to "schedule the next meetup". (this avoids dead meetups staying around by opt-in reschedule.) .6. Cohost listed, links to other listing's .7. Import from other sites ie. Meetup, Facebook. .8. Export to other sites - I. E. Meetup, Facebook. .9. Photo sharing of meetups and communal photo repository.
LW 2.0 Open Beta Live

You can now also deactivate Intercom on your profile. I really wish Intercom wouldn't do the horrible thing with the tab-title.

0korin434yWoo! Also if anyone else gets a "schema validation error" when changing this setting, remove the "Website" from your profile: https://github.com/Discordius/Lesswrong2/issues/225 [https://github.com/Discordius/Lesswrong2/issues/225]
Feedback on LW 2.0

Because that would add a whole different level of complexity to our code, where now instead of just managing CSS styles, we would need to both manage css styles in one section of our page, and JS-inline styles in another section of the page. Since the interface by which you change the material-UI inline-styles is by passing style-objects to the relevant React components.

We tried this for a bit, but this made things much harder to maintain and keep clean than having important-statements in some parts of the CSS.

In the long-run I want to move towards a sty... (read more)

Feedback on LW 2.0

Ah, i agree that that is usually a good heuristic. In our case it's a bit different though.

We are currently using the Material-UI frontend framework, which is great on a really large set of dimensions, but does all of it's styling in the form of inline CSS (the latest version is moving away from that, but that is currently only in prerelease).

In our case, the vast majority of the !important statements are there to override one specific lowest level material-UI inline style, and are not there to override any other styles in our own CSS files. This makes th... (read more)

0Said Achmiz4yWhy not remove/disable that one specific style?
Feedback on LW 2.0

We actually just cleaned up our CSS a bit, but agree that we probably want to make that part cleaner in the long run. Though I haven't found making changes particularly difficult.

3Said Achmiz4yThat's good to hear, and I wish you success in your efforts to that end! Here is a very simple heuristic, which is very helpful in evaluating how clean your CSS is: How many times does !important appear in your codebase? The ideal number is very, very small. (There is a reasonable argument [https://css-tricks.com/when-using-important-is-the-right-choice/] for using it on buttons, and similar utility classes with complex and very specific and universally immutable styling; doing a once-over of a typical LW 2.0 page, I see no cases that fit this profile.) "Zero" is a typical number of instances of !important in a well-maintained CSS codebase. Currently, that number, for the CSS that goes into an ordinary LW 2.0 post, is 623. (This is not the be-all and end-all of CSS code quality metrics! But it is, as I said, a very good heuristic.)
Feedback on LW 2.0

That is correct! I've been a bit less responsive in the last week, but usually get back to people within half an hour to an hour, and have helped dozens of people migrate their accounts, fix bugs, change email addresses, etc.

Feedback on LW 2.0

The plan is to keep the wiki but to not integrate it particularly much into the site. Old links will continue working, but it won't be something that's prominently linked from the site anymore.

It probably makes sense to rework the wiki as well and then integrate it into the site more properly, but until then we are probably going to deemphasize the wiki but otherwise leave it as is.

Feedback on LW 2.0

Strongly agree with 1. I have a plan for a separate thing at the top of the frontpage for logged-in users that takes up much less space and is actually useful for multiple visits. Here is a screenshot of my current UI mockup for the frontpage:

https://imgur.com/a/GXjTY

The emphasis continue to be on historical instead of recent content, with the frontpage emphasizing reading for logged-in users. If you don't have anything in your reading-queue the top part disappears completely and you just have the recent discussion (though by default the HPMOR, The Sequences and The Codex are in your reading queue)

0Viliam4yI think an important thing is that the first screen of the first page should contain the most important things both for the newcomers and for the regular readers. For newcomers, it's the links to HPMOR, The Sequences and The Codex (and anything else that may be later included). Should be at the top, but don't need to take much space vertically. For regular readers, it's the new articles and featured articles. Perhaps in two columns. This way the whole first page could fit on an average monitor. The "progress" part feels quite forced. Having the links displayed, either people will read the stuff, or they will not. If they decide not to read it now, no need to rub their faces in it. EDIT: For people who are logged in, the part for newcomers could be collapsed. If they have an account, they have already see it. But there should be a way to show it again.
4cousin_it4yI think it'd be nice to have one main view that everyone visits, organized as a list of posts sorted chronologically or by magic. Writing my mathy stuff on a website and showing it to friends would be easier if the website didn't have a big banner saying go read this Harry Potter fanfiction or that social issues blogger (much as I love both HPMOR and Scott). Maybe you could put these links in a sidebar instead? Also as a longtime user I don't really care if people have read the Sequences. I don't see much correlation between "this person has read the Sequences" and "this person is interesting" that isn't screened off by "this person was interested in stuff like the Sequences to begin with".
0Said Achmiz4yI, too, would advise against doing this.
2gjm4ySo ... a new LW2 participant will by default be presented with a front page suggesting to them that they're supposed to read all of HPMOR and that not having done so means they haven't yet done their duty? I strongly advise against this. Better, if feasible: (1) by default a new user has an empty reading queue; (2) by default a new user is presented with a thing saying "Go here to set up your reading queue"; (3) making that go away without actually adding anything to your reading queue is easy, but (4) adding things like the Sequences or HPMOR to your queue is also easy.
0[anonymous]4yWill logged-in users be able to switch off this "top of the frontpage"? It looks quite condescending: Continue eating your veggies. You have eaten 4/25 turnips. Your progress in eating turnips is 16%. Or start eating another veggie... YOU WILL SEE MESSAGES ABOUT TURNIPS EVERY TIME YOU LOAD THE PAGE UNTIL YOU EAT ALL OF THEM.
Feedback on LW 2.0

Awesome! I will install this myself and see what we might want to steal for the main LW 2.0 stylesheet.

Feedback on LW 2.0

Can you send me a screenshot of your text, together with your browser version and OS? I've noticed some OS and browser issues with how the font renders, and this has at least caused some people to see the font as much thinner and grayer than intended.

Feedback on LW 2.0

Intended structure of the page is (which is not yet that clear): There are featured posts which are promoted by moderators and very high karma members, there are frontpage posts, which are posts that are addressed to everyone, and then there are posts on your private user page which can only be found on the "all posts" page and by people who are subscribed to you.

The goal is to make it easy to get the best content on LessWrong for multiple levels of investment. I.e. if you just want to read the 5 best posts in a week you can just read the featur... (read more)

5gjm4yOld-LW makes it easy to see everything in something like chronological order, and therefore to know you haven't missed anything you'd want to have read. I think this is a very important feature for something that's trying to be a community and not merely a social news aggregator like Hacker News: if I miss something interesting, I also miss the discussion that happens in its comments and lose the context it provides for future discussion. At present, LesserWrong doesn't (so far as I can see) make it at all easy for me to see everything that's been posted and to know I've seen everything. I think this is my single biggest gripe about the site.
Feedback on LW 2.0

Yeah, this was a bug I accidentally seem to have introduced a bit ago. I apologize. The correct ratio I wanted to use was the one that Tufte CSS uses, which is 21px size to 30px height, which is a much more reasonable ratio. (This will be fixed in the next few days)

2Habryka4yThis is fixed now.
LW2.0 now in public beta (you'll need to reset your password to log in)

Yeah, I apologize. Getting a complete copy of the database requires us to coordinate with Trike Apps and is a lot of work for everyone, so we are limiting the number of complete ports to 2 (i.e. one three months ago, and one on launch).

I am working on a merge-accounts feature, so while I can't absolutely guarantee one, it's very likely you will have the ability to merge your old LW account with any temporary account you create now.

LW2.0 now in public beta (you'll need to reset your password to log in)

We have a copy of the database from 3 months ago (will be updating to a more recent one on launch), but this means that if you added an email to your account later than that we might not have it.

0kgalias4yWill there be a way to merge accounts?
0Yosarian24yYeah, that's the issue, then. And there's no way around that, no way to just let us temporally log in and confirm our emails later?
3Tenoke4ySo there's no way for us to login with our regular accounts before the launch? Is it scheduled for anytime soon? I'd hate to keep seeing all the constant promotion for your site without being able to check it out (since I am not really up for using a temporary account).
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

Sure, happy to change the email address associated with your account!

Just send me a pm with the email you want it changed to, and I will make the modification.

LW 2.0 Open Beta starts 9/20

I think I've figured it out. Some email servers have very strict spam requirements, and I hadn't set up our MX records properly (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/MX_record). This caused the emails to go through for a large majority of users, but not some who had custom domain setups with strong spam filters. This should be fixed now.

Really sorry for the trouble.

0NancyLebovitz4yI'm in! Thanks very much.
LW 2.0 Open Beta starts 9/20

Sorry, there was a miscommunication at an earlier point. We did not send out password-reset emails to everyone, however you can request a password-reset email in the login form on the new LessWrong, which should work well.

0NancyLebovitz4yI've done that. Still haven't gotten an email. I've checked my spam folder.
LW 2.0 Open Beta starts 9/20

Hmm, maybe you had a different email registered than the one you are checking? Can you send me a PM with your preferred email? I am happy to change it to that then.

0gjm4yPM sent. Thanks! (Though I think the email address Lesser Wrong has for me is already the right one...)
LW 2.0 Open Beta starts 9/20

Hmm, is there anything in particular that is not working? We fixed a few bugs over the last few hours, but the page should have been functional since 4PM.

0casebash4yIt works now.
LW 2.0 Open Beta starts 9/20

I apologize!

I noticed a bug with your user account in particular in our logs, though I am not exactly sure what caused it. I fixed it now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Requesting another password reset email now should work well. And if anything else goes wrong, always feel free to ping us on Intercom in the bottom right corner, we are currently on high-alert and so are responding within 5 minutes (and usually respond within the half hour)

0gjm4yI requested another password reset email. Once again, I didn't get one. (Replying here rather than via Intercom because I'm currently in one place and will soon be leaving for another, so if I contact you via Intercom then it will be hours before I see your response and can tell you, or try, anything more.)
LW 2.0 Open Beta starts 9/20

Update: Open beta will happen today by 4pm Pacific time. At this point you will be able to sign up / login with your LW 1.0 accounts (if the latter, you should request a password-rest email, as we did not copy over your passwords).

0Alicorn4yI don't seem to have received the password reset email either. (Also, you might want to have this information on the website itself somewhere accessible from the login box.)
0gjm4yI attempted to sign up using my LW 1.0 username and a newly generated password. I was told that an account already existed. I then said I'd forgotten my password and was told that a new one was being emailed to me. Some considerable time later, I have not received any such email. I do not believe any such email arrived and was binned as spam. Is this a known problem? Is there any way to find out whether I did actually get sent a password-reset email, and if so whether it bounced? [EDITED to add:] Nor did I receive any sort of password-reset email before doing the above.
0casebash4yIt does not seem to be working.
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

Oh, that's cool! I didn't know that.

This does update me towards the wiki being important. I just pinged Malo on whether I can get access to the LessWrong wiki analytics, so that I can look a bit more into this.

LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

Apparently me and Ben responded to this at the same time. We seem to have mostly said the same things, so we are apparently fairly in sync.

LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

"Can anyone make a personal page? Are there any requirements for the content -- does it need to be "rationality" themed, or can it be whatever the user wants (with the expectation that only LW-appropriate stuff will get promoted to the general frontpage)? Can a user get kicked off for inappropriate content (whatever that means)?"

Current answer to all of those is:

I don't have a plan for that yet, let's figure it out as we run into that problem. For now having too much traffic or content to the site seems like a less important error mode... (read more)

2ChristianKl4yWhen deciding whether to publish content it seems to me to be important whether content is welcome or isn't. Unclarity about the policy can hold people back from contributing.
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

Wow... yes. This is the second time in this comment thread that I forgot to add a "dis" in front of a word.

LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

Thanks for the recommendations!

"This is a slightly odd comment, if only because "hierarchical or tag-based structures" describes almost all extant websites that aggregate / archive / collect content in any way!"

Well, the emphasis here was on the "more". I.e. there are more feed based architectures, and there are more taxonomy/tagging based architectures. There is a spectrum, and reddit very much leans towards the feed direction, which is what LessWrong has historically been. And wiki's very much lean towards the taxonomy spectrum. I feel we want to be somewhere in between, but I don't know where yet.

1morganism4yHow bout a circular hierarchy, with different color highlights for posts, comments, articles, wiki, tags,and links. http://yed.yworks.com/support/manual/layout_circular.html [http://yed.yworks.com/support/manual/layout_circular.html] you could have upvotes contribute to weighting , and just show a tag cloud like connection diagram.
4Said Achmiz4yCertainly there is variation, but I actually don't think that viewing that variation as a unidimensional spectrum is correct. Consider: I have a blog. It functions just like a regular (wordpress) blog—it's sequential, it even has the usual RSS feed, etc. But it runs on pmwiki. So every page is a wikipage (and thus pages are organized into groups; they have tags and are viewable by group, by tag, by custom pagelist, etc.) So what is that? Feed-based, or tag-based, or hierarchical, or... what? I think these things are much more orthogonal than you give them credit for. Tag-based structure can overlay hierarchical structure without affecting it; custom pagelist/index structure, ditto; and you can serve anything you like as a feed by simply applying an ordering (by timestamp is the obvious and common one, but there are many other possibilities), and you can have multiple feeds, custom feeds, dynamic feeds, etc.; you can subset (filter) in various ways… (Graph-theoretic interpretations of this are probably obvious, but if anyone wants me to comment on that aspect of it, I will) P.S.: I think reddit is a terrible model, quite honestly. The evolution of reddit, into what it is today, makes it fairly obvious (to me, anyway) that it's not to be emulated. Edit: To be clear, the scenario above isn't hypothetical—that is how my actual blog [https://blog.obormot.net/] works. Edit2: Consider also https://readthesequences.com [https://readthesequences.com] . (It, too, runs on pmwiki.) There's a linear structure (it's a book; the linear navigation UI takes you through the content in order), but it would obviously be trivial to apply tags to pages, and the book/sequence structure is hierarchical already.
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

We are planning to leave the wiki up, and probably restyle it at some point, so it will not be gone. User accounts will no longer be shared though, for the foreseeable future, which I don't think will be too much of an issue.

But I don't yet have a model of how to make the wiki in general work well. The current wiki is definitely useful, but I feel that it's main use has been the creation of sequences and collections of posts, which is now integrated more deeply into the site via the sequences functionality.

5Wei_Dai4yThe wiki is also useful for defining basic concepts used by this community, and linking to them in posts and comments when you think some of your readers might not be familiar with them. It might also be helpful for outreach, for example our wiki page for decision theory shows up in the first page of Google results for "decision theory".
5DragonGod4ySeveral people have suggested pmwiki [http://www.pmwiki.org/]; perhaps you should give it a try?
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

"How does this incentivise downvoting?"

Sorry, my bad. I wanted to write "disincentivize", but failed. I guess it's a warning against using big words.

2DragonGod4yOh, okay. I still think we want to disincentivise downvoting though. ##Pros 1. Users only downvote content they feel strong displeasure towards. 2. Karma assassination via sockpuppets becomes impossible, and targeted karma attacks through your main account because you dislike a user becomes very costly. 3. Moderation of downvoting behaviour would be vastly reduced as users downvote less, and only on content they have strong feelings towards. #Cons 1. There are much less downvotes. 2. I don't think downvotes should be costly. On StackExchange mediocre content can get a high score if it relates to a popular topic. Given that this website has the goal of filtering content in a way that allows people who only want to read a subset to read the high quality posts downvotes of medicore content as useful information. I think the first con is a feature and not a bug; it is not clear to me that more downvotes are intrinsically beneficial. The second point is valid criticism and I think we need to way the benefit of the downvotes against their cost. I suggest users lose 40% of the karma they deduct (since you want to give different users different weights). For example, if you downvote someone, they lose 5 karma, but you lose 2 karma.
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

"Are you sure that the set of people that are being recruited to the community via HPMOR, and the set of people whom we most want to recruit into the community, have a lot of overlap?"

I agree that this is a concern to definitely think about, though in this case I feel like I have pretty solid evidence that there is indeed large amount of overlap. A lot of the best people that I've seen show up over the last few years seem to have been attracted by HPMOR (I would say more than 25%). It would be great to have some better formatted data on this, and... (read more)

LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

I think this roughly summarizes my perspective on this. Karma seems to work well for a very large range of online forums and applications. We didn't really have any problems with collusion on LW outside of Eugine, and that was a result of a lack of moderator tools, not a problem with the karma system itself.

I agree that you should never fully delegate your decision making process to a simple algorithm, that's what the value-loading problem is all about, but that's what we have moderators and admins for. If we see suspicious behavior in the voting patterns we investigate and if we find someone is gaming the system we punish them. This is how practically all social rules and systems get enforced.

LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

"This won't work, for the same reason PageRank did not work"

I am very confused by this. Google's search vastly outperformed its competitors with PageRank and is still using a heavily tweaked version of PageRank to this day, delivering by far the best search on the market. It seems to me that PageRank should widely be considered to be the most successful reputation algorithm that has ever been invented, having demonstrated extraordinary real-world success. In what way does it make sense to say "PageRank did not work"?

8ZorbaTHut_duplicate0.110423476986178054yFWIW, I worked at Google about a decade ago, and even then, PageRank was basically no longer used. I can't imagine it's gotten more influence since. It did work, but I got the strong sense that it no longer worked.
7IlyaShpitser4yGoogle is using a much more complicated algorithm that is constantly tweaked, and is a trade secret -- precisely because as soon as it became profitable to do so, the ecosystem proceeded to game the hell out of PageRank. Google hasn't been using PageRank-as-in-the-paper for ages. The real secret sauce behind Google is not eigenvalues, it's the fact that it's effectively anti-inductive, because the algorithm isn't open and there is an army of humans looking for attempts to game it, and modifying it as soon as such an attempt is found.
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

1) I think this would be great, but is also really hard. I feel like you would need to build a whole wiki-structure with conflict resolution and moderation norms and collaborative editing features to achieve that kind of thing. But who knows, there might be an elegant and simple implementation that would work that I haven't thought of.

2) Arbital-style greenlinks are in the works and should definitely exist. For now they would only do the summary and glossary thing when you link to LW posts, but we can probably come up with a way of crowdsourcing more definitions of stuff without needing to create whole posts for it. Open to design suggestions here.

5DragonGod4yI think the wiki is an integral feature of LW, such that if the new site lacks a Wiki, I'll resist moving to the new site.
0lifelonglearner4yThe easiest method for 1, I think, would just to have a section under every item in the glossary called "Examples" and trust the community to put in good ones and delete bad ones. For 2, I was thinking about something like a page running Algolia instant search, that would quickly find the term you want, bolded, with it's accompanying definition after it, dictionary-esque.
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

Agree with this.

I do however think that we actually have a really large stream of high-quality-content already in the broader rationality diaspora that we just need to tap into and get onto the new page. As such, the problem is a bit easier than getting a ton of new content creators, and is instead more of a problem of building something that the current content creators want to move towards.

And as soon as we have a high-quality stream of new content I think it will be easier to attract new writers who will be looking to expand their audience.

3Yosarian24yMaybe; there certanly are a lot of good rationalist bloggers who have at least at some point been interested in LessWrong. I don't think bloggers will come back though unless the site first becomes more active then it currently is. (They may give it a chance after the Beta is rolled out, but if activity doesn't increase quickly they'll leave again.) Activity and an active community is necessary to keep a project like this going. Without an active community here there's no point in coming back here instead of posting on your own blog. I guess my concern here though is that right now, LessWrong has a "discussion" side which is a little active and a "main" side which is totally dead. And it sounds like this plan would basically get rid of the discussion side, and make it harder to post on the main side. Won't the most likely outcome just be to lower the amount of content and the activity level even more, maybe to zero? Fundamentally, I think the premise of your second bottleneck is incorrect. We don't really have a problem with signal-to-noise ratio here, most of the posts that do get posted here are pretty good, and the few that aren't don't get upvoted and most people ignore them without a problem. We have a problem with low total activity, which is almost the exact opposite problem.
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

I agree that I really want a Robin Hanson collection in a similar style to how we already have a Scott Alexander collection. We will have to coordinate with Robin on that. I can imagine him being on board, but I can also imagine him being hesitant to have all his content crossposted to another site. He seemed to prefer having full control over everything on his own page, and apparently didn't end up posting very much on LessWrong, even as LW ended up with a much larger community and much more activity.

2DragonGod4yWell, maintaining links to them (if he prefers them on his site) might be an acceptable compromise then? I think Robin's posts are a core part of the "rationalist curriculum", and the site would be incomplete if we don't include them.
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

I feel that this comment deserves a whole post in response, but I probably won't get around to that for a while, so here is a short summary:

  • I generally think people have confused models about what forms of weirdness are actually costly. The much more common error mode for online communities is being boring and uninteresting. The vast majority of the most popular online forums are really weird and have a really strong distinct culture. The same is true for religions. There are forms of weirdness that prevent you from growing, but I feel that implementing

... (read more)
9richardbatty4yYou're mainly arguing against my point about weirdness, which I think was less important than my point about user testing with people outside of the community. Perhaps I could have argued more clearly: the thing I'm most concerned about is that you're building lesswrong 2.0 for the current rationality community rather than thinking about what kinds of people you want to be contributing to it and learning from it and building it for them. So it seems important to do some user interviews with people outside of the community who you'd like to join it. On the weirdness point: maybe it's useful to distinguish between two meanings of 'rationality community'. One meaning is the intellectual of community of people who further the art of rationality. Another meaning is more of a cultural community: a set of people who know each other as friends, have similar lifestyles and hobbies, like the same kinds of fiction, in jokes, etc. I'm concerned that less wrong 2.0 will select for people who want to join the cultural community, rather than people who want to join the intellectual community. But the intellectual community seems much more important. This then gives us two types of weirdness: weirdness that comes out of the intellectual content of the community is important to keep - ideas such as existential risk fit in here. Weirdness that comes more out of the cultural community seems unnecessary - such as references to HPMOR. We can make an analogy with science here: scientists come from a wide range of cultural, political, and religious backgrounds. They come together to do science, and are selected on their ability to do science, not their desire to fit into a subculture. I'd like to see lesswrong 2.0 to be more like this, i.e. an intellectual community rather than a subculture.
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

Yeah, the design of the commenting UI is sufficiently different, and more optimized for mobile that I expect this problem to be gone. That said, we are still having some problems with our editor on mobile, and it will take a bit to sort that out.

0DragonGod4yThanks. Even if it's no longer a problem, I think saving drafts of comments (if it's not too big a headache to add) would be a nice improvement.
LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

This already exists! You can see an example of that with Elizabeth's blog "Aceso Under Glass" here:

https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/mjneyoZjyk9oC5ocA/epistemic-spot-check-a-guide-to-better-movement-todd

We set it up so that Elizabeth has a tag on her wordpress blog such that whenever she adds something to that tag, it automatically gets crossposted to LessWrong. We can do this with arbitrary RSS feeds, as long as the RSS feeds export the full html of the post.

LW 2.0 Strategic Overview

Being aware that this is probably the most bikesheddy thing in this whole discussion, I've actually thought about this a bit.

From skimming a lot of early Eliezer posts, I've seen all three uses "LessWrong", "Lesswrong" and "Less Wrong" and so there isn't a super clear precedent here, though I do agree that "Less Wrong" was used a bit more often.

I personally really like "Less Wrong", because it has two weirdly capitalized words, and I don't like brand names that are two words. It makes it sound too much li... (read more)

8Viliam4yI think "Less Wrong" was an appropriate name at the beginning, when the community around the website was very small. Now that we have grown, both in user count and in content size, we could simply start calling ourselves "Wrong". One word, no problems with capitalization or spacing.
6gjm4y"LessWrong" also has two weirdly capitalized words, but it's one notch weirder because they've been stuck together. I agree that this is a super-bikesheddy topic and will try to avoid getting into an argument about this, but I would like to register a strong preference for "Less Wrong" as the default version of the name.
9arundelo4yI just used Wei Dai'slesswrong_user [http://www.ibiblio.org/weidai/lesswrong_user.php] script to download Eliezer's posts and comments (excluding, last I knew, those that don't show up on his "OVERVIEW" page [https://lesswrong.com/user/Eliezer_Yudkowsky/overview/] e.g. for karma reasons). This went back to late December 2009 before the network connection got dropped. I counted his uses of "LessWrong" versus "Less Wrong". (Of course I didn't count things such as the domain name "lesswrong.com", the English phrase "less wrong", or derived words like "LessWrongers".) "LessWrong":1 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/63w/the_fourhour_body_by_timothy_ferriss_any_lwers/]2 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/bc3/sotw_be_specific/]3* [https://lesswrong.com/lw/bnk/sotw_avoid_motivated_cognition/]4* [https://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/7fhq] "Less Wrong":1 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/1kh/the_correct_contrarian_cluster/1cwu]2 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/1mk/meetup_bay_area_jan_15th_7pm/]3 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/1op/a_much_better_life/1l1f]4 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/1s4/open_thread_february_2010_part_2/1nev]5 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/1p5/outside_view_as_conversationhalter/]6 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/1s3/hedging_our_bets_the_case_for_pursuing_whole/1oys] 7 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/b9/welcome_to_less_wrong/1r8d]8 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/2q5/lws_first_job_ad/]9 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/4v4/melbourne_meetup/3ptq]10 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/4vr/less_wrong_rationality_and_mainstream_philosophy/3rdb] 11 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/4vr/less_wrong_rationality_and_mainstream_philosophy/3rgr] 12 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/53k/rationality_quotes_april_2011/3tw3]13 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/5fo/siai_fundraising/41jz]14 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/5kz/the_5second_level/]15 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/5o8/the_elephant_in_the_room_ama/460g]16 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/5x8/rationality_skills_to_teach/]17 [https://lesswrong.com/lw/78s/help_fund_lukeprog_at_siai/]18 [htt
2ESRogs4yDid you mean to write, 'dislike' "Less Wrong"'?
2Elo4yIrrelevant as to which. Just pick one and stick to. It.
Load More