My data points are far from a systemic study, but I appreciate your perspective.
I have a hard time determining the delineation between Discussion/Main, but I decided this didn’t really cover any new ground so belonged in discussion. If we have a really good discussion and new points are brought up I might rewrite it for the main page (and include science and real studies, not just anecdotal evidence).
That’s a pretty good standard. Another distinction is discussion posts can bring up problems, but main page posts are expected to solve the problem, usually in a new way. This is why people downvoted Matthew’s post.
I rewrote a discussion article for the main page and i still don’t know if its up to snuff xD but we teenage rationalists gotta stick together and I thought your article was great.
My data points are far from a systemic study, but I appreciate your perspective.
I have a hard time determining the delineation between Discussion/Main, but I decided this didn’t really cover any new ground so belonged in discussion. If we have a really good discussion and new points are brought up I might rewrite it for the main page (and include science and real studies, not just anecdotal evidence).
That’s a pretty good standard. Another distinction is discussion posts can bring up problems, but main page posts are expected to solve the problem, usually in a new way. This is why people downvoted Matthew’s post.
Since the Main page is the only part that many new members see, it’s perfectly fine for a post on Main to cover ground that’s familiar to veterans.
Personally, I think that this post has the solid content and polished style that merits promotion to the Main area.
I rewrote a discussion article for the main page and i still don’t know if its up to snuff xD but we teenage rationalists gotta stick together and I thought your article was great.