Yeah. Not 100% sure how to implement this but I’ve been thinking about this general principle and expect it to be important in some fashion. Getting linked (in particular by highly upvoted posts seems like it should contribute to post karma).
One important question is “what is the mechanism by which we want people to be finding old posts in the first place?”
Old stock posts that have low karma (because they came before the current inflationary period where karma got multiplied by 3). But this doesn’t really come into play at the moment AFAICT, since we don’t actually have a view for looking at old posts with high karma.
It does seem like we should probably have such a view – we removed the Top Posts view when we re-organized the frontpage because a) almost nobody was using it and b) the frontpage filtering options were getting somewhat convoluted and we were trying to keep them simple.
I do expect us to revisit this at some point, although I think it’s worth putting some thought into what we’re actually trying to accomplish here. If there’s important Stock posts that people haven’t read, it may make more sense to have them included in sequences that are promoted or something rather than a posts-view that’s basically “here read all the most important stock posts in random order.”
Ah, yeah. (Aside: someone on intercom was asking how to view all posts in order, and I sent them a link to this page because I didn’t know about the archive option, which upon reflection is ‘right there’, but also sort of tucked out of the way and I didn’t notice it)
“what is the mechanism by which we want people to be finding old posts in the first place?”
We need silos for posts to go into. Filtered by tag, filtered by section or somehow clustered.
We need people to volunteer to curate a cluster on a topic, and we need to have a collection of curated clusters, i.e. on the wiki. Some posts can stay in the history books but we should aim to organise the backlog into some kind of accessible structure.
(I might be more help with suggesting structures if I knew just how many posts we were dealing with in the archives)
it may make more sense to have them included in sequences that are promoted or something rather than a posts-view that’s basically “here read all the most important stock posts in random order.”
I’m not sure about this. The sequences are long. Starting a sequence sounds like signing up for a slog. But if there’s a list that’s like, “Here are the core ideas (posts) that are most referenced in other posts, in sorted order.” Then someone can bite off just a little piece at a time. And it makes it easier to 80-20 reading (or reviewing) the sequences.
I guess depends on how many dependencies the posts have. Some posts actually come with prerequisites, and it may make more sense to just read them in order.
Sure, but there comes a point as you’re backchaining through posts that I think it makes more sense to go ‘okay, it turns out there’s like 10 (or 100) of these things and it makes way more sense to read them in order.’
Yeah. Not 100% sure how to implement this but I’ve been thinking about this general principle and expect it to be important in some fashion. Getting linked (in particular by highly upvoted posts seems like it should contribute to post karma).
One important question is “what is the mechanism by which we want people to be finding old posts in the first place?”
Old stock posts that have low karma (because they came before the current inflationary period where karma got multiplied by 3). But this doesn’t really come into play at the moment AFAICT, since we don’t actually have a view for looking at old posts with high karma.
It does seem like we should probably have such a view – we removed the Top Posts view when we re-organized the frontpage because a) almost nobody was using it and b) the frontpage filtering options were getting somewhat convoluted and we were trying to keep them simple.
I do expect us to revisit this at some point, although I think it’s worth putting some thought into what we’re actually trying to accomplish here. If there’s important Stock posts that people haven’t read, it may make more sense to have them included in sequences that are promoted or something rather than a posts-view that’s basically “here read all the most important stock posts in random order.”
*cough* https://www.greaterwrong.com/archive
Ah, yeah. (Aside: someone on intercom was asking how to view all posts in order, and I sent them a link to this page because I didn’t know about the archive option, which upon reflection is ‘right there’, but also sort of tucked out of the way and I didn’t notice it)
We need silos for posts to go into. Filtered by tag, filtered by section or somehow clustered.
We need people to volunteer to curate a cluster on a topic, and we need to have a collection of curated clusters, i.e. on the wiki. Some posts can stay in the history books but we should aim to organise the backlog into some kind of accessible structure.
(I might be more help with suggesting structures if I knew just how many posts we were dealing with in the archives)
I’m not sure about this. The sequences are long. Starting a sequence sounds like signing up for a slog. But if there’s a list that’s like, “Here are the core ideas (posts) that are most referenced in other posts, in sorted order.” Then someone can bite off just a little piece at a time. And it makes it easier to 80-20 reading (or reviewing) the sequences.
I guess depends on how many dependencies the posts have. Some posts actually come with prerequisites, and it may make more sense to just read them in order.
Let the reader decide if they need the prereq!
Sure, but there comes a point as you’re backchaining through posts that I think it makes more sense to go ‘okay, it turns out there’s like 10 (or 100) of these things and it makes way more sense to read them in order.’