Good to know, thank you.
I think I’ll just ditch the “separate claims/arguments into lines” effort.
Forrest also just wrote me:
“In regards to the line formatting, I am thinking we can, and maybe should (?) convert to simple conventional wrapping mode? I am wondering if the phrase breaks are more trouble then they are worth, when presenting in more conventional contexts like LW, AF, etc. It feels too weird to me, given the already high weirdness level I cannot help but carry.”
I think my problem is with something other than line breaks (although the line breaks do increase the weird feeling). The text is, essentially, bullet points. There is no introduction, no summary. (Actually, there is an attempt to “ABST”, but it’s not really legible.) If I don’t guess correctly what the author is trying to say, there is very little effort to communicate that to me. This seems like someone’s private notes that were not intended for an audience.
To compare, this is a text (from the same author) that I can read and understand easily. Because it has sentences, paragraphs, explanations.
Forest mentioned that for most people, reading his precise “EGS” format will be unparsable unless one has had practice with it. Also agreed that there is no background or context. The “ABSTract” is really too often too brief a note, usually just a reminder what the overall idea is. And the text itself IS internal notes, as you have said.
He says that it is a good reminder that he should remember to convert “EGS” to normal prose before publishing. He does not always have the energy or time or enthusiasm to do it. Often it requires a lot of expansion too – ie, some writing has to expand to 5 times their “EGS” size.
I’ll also work on this! There’s a lot of content to share, but will try and format and rephrase to be better followable for readers on LessWrong.
For some reason this is almost impossible for me to read, it feels like word salad.
Good to know, thank you. I think I’ll just ditch the “separate claims/arguments into lines” effort.
Forrest also just wrote me: “In regards to the line formatting, I am thinking we can, and maybe should (?) convert to simple conventional wrapping mode? I am wondering if the phrase breaks are more trouble then they are worth, when presenting in more conventional contexts like LW, AF, etc. It feels too weird to me, given the already high weirdness level I cannot help but carry.”
I think my problem is with something other than line breaks (although the line breaks do increase the weird feeling). The text is, essentially, bullet points. There is no introduction, no summary. (Actually, there is an attempt to “ABST”, but it’s not really legible.) If I don’t guess correctly what the author is trying to say, there is very little effort to communicate that to me. This seems like someone’s private notes that were not intended for an audience.
To compare, this is a text (from the same author) that I can read and understand easily. Because it has sentences, paragraphs, explanations.
Your remarks make complete sense.
Forest mentioned that for most people, reading his precise “EGS” format will be unparsable unless one has had practice with it. Also agreed that there is no background or context. The “ABSTract” is really too often too brief a note, usually just a reminder what the overall idea is. And the text itself IS internal notes, as you have said.
He says that it is a good reminder that he should remember to convert “EGS” to normal prose before publishing. He does not always have the energy or time or enthusiasm to do it. Often it requires a lot of expansion too – ie, some writing has to expand to 5 times their “EGS” size.
I’ll also work on this! There’s a lot of content to share, but will try and format and rephrase to be better followable for readers on LessWrong.