Member of the LessWrong 2.0 team. I've been a member of the rationalist/EA communities since 2012. I have particular rationality interests in planning and emotions.
Checkout www.lesswrong.com/tag/postmortems, it’s an experimental tag within the under-development feature.
Good question! I think this was missed in FAQ and I'll add it in. Currently multiple authors can only be added by an admin. If it works for you, send us a message through Intercom, or email email@example.com.
There are five people on the team. I wasn't the most involved, but I was still very involved. But you'll hear from all of soon, don't you worry.
The team will be conducting a Review of the Review where we take stock of what happened, discuss the value and costs of the Review process, and think about how to make the review process more effective and efficient in future years.
I just want to speak up for myself, as I mentioned in a different comment, that at least in my mind, we need to properly review this year's Review before we're definitely committing to run this every year. I think the OP implies a greater level of confidence that the project was a "success" and will be repeated in subsequent than I feel.Just so far, I've seen a lot of good come from this year's review that I'm very pleased with, but it's a costly project (for the team and the community), so that calculation needs to be done carefully. This comment shouldn't be interpreted as a sign that I'm negative on the Review. This is my attitude to every project that takes up significant resources. I won't have a firm opinion until I've thought about the Review a lot more and discussed at length with the team. We had to get the results out there quick though, ;)
If voters are at all consistent, you'd expect at lease some positive correlation because the same factors that made them upvote for karma also made upvote for the Review.
Beyond that, I'm guessing people voted for the posts they'd read, and people would have read higher karma posts more often since they get more exposure, e.g. sticking around the Latest Posts list for longer.
So, my question is - do the organizers think it was worth it? And if yes, do you think it is worth it enough for publishing in a book? And if yes to both - what would failure have looked like?
These are really excellent questions. The OP mentions the intention to "review the review" in coming weeks; there will be posts about this, so hang tight. Obviously the whole project had very high costs, so we have to think carefully through whether the benefits justify them and whether we should continue the Review process in future years. Speaking for myself, it's not obvious that it was worth it, but still quite possible. It's a hard question because I expect the many of the benefits to accrue over time and be not straightforward to measure.
I think we should do a thorough review now with what we know now, and would need to do another review in ~year's time before pressing go on the next iteration.
I've generally been pushing for all major projects at LW to be properly reviewed with an eye to: Where they worth it? What did we learn? And what remains to be done?
It seems like very few people voted overall if the average is "10-20" voters per post. I hope they are buying 50+ books each otherwise I don't see how the book part is remotely worth it.
I'm confused by this. Why would only voters be interested in the books? Also, this statement assumes that you have to sell 500-1000 books for it to be worth it– what's the calculation for the value of a book sold vs the cost of making the books?
The voting was broken in multiple ways - you could spend as many points as possible, but instead of a cut-off, your vote was just cast out due to the organizers' mistake to allow it.
I was surprised by this design decision too, though I'll note that the number of points spent was displayed and went red once you exceeded the budget. (Which has the advantage of if you're going over, you can place a vote and then decide whether to remove it or another.) Everyone except for the single person who spent 10,000 points kept to 500 or less.
If a similar system is used on future occasions, it might be a good idea to limit how strong votes are made for users who don't cast many votes.
The quadratic-vote-allocator's multiplier of non-quadratic votes was capped at a multiplier of 6x. A "No" vote starts out with a cost -4, so even if you only voted "No" on one item, it wouldn't become more than a cost of 24 which translates into a vote with weight -6.
I'd say the -30 was intentional.
Bounty offered for Analysis of the ResultsI'm offering a pool of $100+ of my personal money for the best analyses of the results, as judged by me. I'm looking for things that are meaningful insights drawn from the data, e.g. modeling the interaction between the karma score of a post and its vote outcomes.
There are a number of aggregate stats for each post included in the linked spreadsheet, but I'm also open to making available further stats or data to people upon request so long as they keep the voters anonymous.EDIT: Be creative in what analyses you might run and don't limit yourself to just what's the in spreadsheet. As above, I'll share more data if it seems appropriate. This might be data about posts, comments, and anything else to do with the site.
I voted very hard for this post. The idea feels correct, though I'd describe it as pointing at a key unresolved confusion/conflict for me. It fuels this quiet voice of doubt about everything I do my life (and about others in theirs). I'm not entirely sure what do with this model though, like, the entailment is missing or something. I voted hard mostly because I see it as the start of an issue to be resolved, not a finished work.I'm not sure if the lack of "solution/response" or possibility of bad solution/responses is what you think is dangerous, or perhaps something in the very framing itself (if so, I'm not seeing it).
I should probably give the whole topic bit more thought rather than looping on my feelings of "stuck" around it.