I don’t think people should use this site to promote their personal blogs. Sure, you can add a link to your blog at the bottom of your post, but this teaser excerpt BS is really irritating. I don’t click through just out of principle.
If you have something to say, post the whole thing here. If I like what you have to say, I might check out your other stuff, but I’m not going to be forced into it.
Fwiw, while I much prefer full cross-posts, in practice we can’t actually force people to do stuff. Insofar as people are making the choice between “not post on LW, while posting elsewhere” and “link post on LW” I still prefer the latter.
But note that we generally don’t curate (or at least have a higher bar for curating) posts that are not fully crossposted, so there’s at least some incentive to post the full text on LW.
I prefer lesswrong-specific posts, and while I like them less, I’m happy to have both crossposts and linkposts. My comment was intended to be a hint that a linkpost should be labeled as such (and I do appreciate a summary or excerpt) or a crosspost should be complete.
I agree with this sentiment. I am in favor of link-posts that are also cross-posts; this is the best of both worlds: readers don’t have to leave Less Wrong to read the post (and thus get to take advantage of LW’s or GW’s far superior features to those of most blog software), and there’s a clear link to the originating blog if a reader wants to check out more of the author’s stuff.
However, there is a caveat: sometimes copying over a post is quite impractical, at best. (Such was the case with one of my posts.)
I do also think link-posts are fine. I personally prefer short-excerpts over no excerpt, but a lot of people seem to be annoyed by it, so I would generally recommend copying over the whole thing (and I am happy to set up crossposting for people so that that happens automatically when you apply a tag on your blog).
Did you intend this to be a linkpost, or a full post? it got cut off after the Bostrom exerpt.
I don’t think people should use this site to promote their personal blogs. Sure, you can add a link to your blog at the bottom of your post, but this teaser excerpt BS is really irritating. I don’t click through just out of principle.
If you have something to say, post the whole thing here. If I like what you have to say, I might check out your other stuff, but I’m not going to be forced into it.
Fwiw, while I much prefer full cross-posts, in practice we can’t actually force people to do stuff. Insofar as people are making the choice between “not post on LW, while posting elsewhere” and “link post on LW” I still prefer the latter.
But note that we generally don’t curate (or at least have a higher bar for curating) posts that are not fully crossposted, so there’s at least some incentive to post the full text on LW.
Okay I posted the whole thing here now.
Thank you. Greatly appreciated.
I prefer lesswrong-specific posts, and while I like them less, I’m happy to have both crossposts and linkposts. My comment was intended to be a hint that a linkpost should be labeled as such (and I do appreciate a summary or excerpt) or a crosspost should be complete.
I agree with this sentiment. I am in favor of link-posts that are also cross-posts; this is the best of both worlds: readers don’t have to leave Less Wrong to read the post (and thus get to take advantage of LW’s or GW’s far superior features to those of most blog software), and there’s a clear link to the originating blog if a reader wants to check out more of the author’s stuff.
However, there is a caveat: sometimes copying over a post is quite impractical, at best. (Such was the case with one of my posts.)
I do also think link-posts are fine. I personally prefer short-excerpts over no excerpt, but a lot of people seem to be annoyed by it, so I would generally recommend copying over the whole thing (and I am happy to set up crossposting for people so that that happens automatically when you apply a tag on your blog).
I think it’s intended to be an excerpt of the whole post, though I do think it would be better if the post made that clear