Since you declared Crocker’s rules on the writing so explicitly...
teqnuices
from first paragraph techniques*
verification for new sequnces before thinking of any solutions
from third paragraph sequences*
yourself(I know t
from second paragraph This should probably have a space.
genreally
from fourth paragraph last sentence generally*
reliablity
from fourth paragraph first sentence reliability*
While there are some time and talent limitation I would be willing to help with creating the measures, collecting and interpeting the data and any other necessary steps.
limitations interpreting
It seems that most writers have a decent idea of what benefits they expect people to gain from their sequences’
from fourth paragraph third sentence There is no need for an apostrophe after the word “sequences.”
Then before running the sequence main sequence they could put out a call for people to complete these measures and send them in
“Then before publishing the sequence they could request people complete these measures and send them in” would be a bit better.
Your post reads like spoken communication. Almost every sentence could be improved.
My writing skills are also lacking but I’ll give it a shot…
Does the start of a new sequence present a way around this for that sequence’s content?
The publishing of a sequence with new material may present an opportunity to perform rationality tests without the aforementioned difficulties.
The necessity and viability of having additional experimental controls, like a control group that just reports the measures, without reading the sequence will vary between sequences. But I think we will generally be fine with a simple before and after picture.
Whether additional experimental controls are necessary and/or viable will vary between sequences. For example, a control group could report their measurements without reading the sequence. Regardless, I think it is generally adequate to simply compare individual’s measurements from before and after reading the sequence.
I guess I invoke Crocker’s rules as well. Although, I think my sentences may be even worse…
The necessity and viability of having additional experimental controls will vary between sequences. For example, we could use a control group that doesn’t read the sequence, or reads an alternate version while still filling out the same measures. But I think we will generally be fine with a simple before and after picture.
To a new version of my own. Also considered changing it to:
The necessity and viability of having additional experimental controls will vary between sequences. For example, we could use a control group that doesn’t read the sequence, or reads an alternate version while still filling out the same measures. But I think we will generally be fine with a simple before and after picture.
I apologize for being snarky. I am aware of the usage, though I am more familiar with the form in which the asterisk comes at the beginning of the line. I always assumed that the construction came from the way asterisks are used in footnotes, though of course I could be wrong about that. I had not thought to look at the Wikipedia page, so thanks for the link.
Perhaps I should have said that the use of asterisks as a correction marker is in a lower register than I am used to seeing on LW, at least to my eyes. It is fine for IM conversation (though it still grates a little*) but less so for a non-real-time format where you have the luxury of editing. I’ll acknowledge that I am at 31 on the older side for this forum and so possibly not fully au courant.
[Edited for formatting.]
* Which I’m trying to get over. I expect it annoys me for the same reason ending rants with ”/rant” does, though on a smaller scale.
Since you declared Crocker’s rules on the writing so explicitly...
from first paragraph
techniques*
from third paragraph
sequences*
from second paragraph
This should probably have a space.
from fourth paragraph last sentence
generally*
from fourth paragraph first sentence
reliability*
limitations
interpreting
from fourth paragraph third sentence
There is no need for an apostrophe after the word “sequences.”
“Then before publishing the sequence they could request people complete these measures and send them in” would be a bit better.
Your post reads like spoken communication. Almost every sentence could be improved.
My writing skills are also lacking but I’ll give it a shot…
The publishing of a sequence with new material may present an opportunity to perform rationality tests without the aforementioned difficulties.
Whether additional experimental controls are necessary and/or viable will vary between sequences. For example, a control group could report their measurements without reading the sequence. Regardless, I think it is generally adequate to simply compare individual’s measurements from before and after reading the sequence.
I guess I invoke Crocker’s rules as well. Although, I think my sentences may be even worse…
Changed
To a new version of my own. Also considered changing it to:
Any advice on which is better?
What do the asterisks mean?
It indicates a correction
I apologize for being snarky. I am aware of the usage, though I am more familiar with the form in which the asterisk comes at the beginning of the line. I always assumed that the construction came from the way asterisks are used in footnotes, though of course I could be wrong about that. I had not thought to look at the Wikipedia page, so thanks for the link.
Perhaps I should have said that the use of asterisks as a correction marker is in a lower register than I am used to seeing on LW, at least to my eyes. It is fine for IM conversation (though it still grates a little*) but less so for a non-real-time format where you have the luxury of editing. I’ll acknowledge that I am at 31 on the older side for this forum and so possibly not fully au courant.
[Edited for formatting.]
* Which I’m trying to get over. I expect it annoys me for the same reason ending rants with ”/rant” does, though on a smaller scale.
I was correcting the original poster, not myself.
How did you miss this one “teqnuices” in the first sentence?
I didn’t.