The table of contents at the top is currently not synced with the actual headings, and is missing most of the subheadings.
“My hope is that if LessWrong resonates with your values and interests, this guide will help you become a valued member of community. And if LessWrong isn’t the place for you, this guide will help you have a good “visit” or simply seek other pastures.” → Is the second sentence really necessary?
“We strive to maintain a culture that’s uncommon for web forums[1] and to stay true to our values.” → The “stay true to our values” part of the sentence seems rather empty because the values aren’t actually listed until a later section. How about “We strive to main a culture and values which are uncommon for web forums” or some such?
Re: “Our definition of rationality” in the section ‘What LessWrong is about: “Rationality”’: Instead of the current footnote, I’d prefer to see a brief disambiguation on what similar-sounding concepts LW-style rationality is not equivalent to, namely philosophical rationalism. And even most of the criticisms on the Wikipedia page on rationality don’t refer to the LW concept of rationality, but something different and much older.
“If you’re on board with our program and will help make our community more successful at its goals, then welcome!” → I know what you’re going for here, but this currently sounds like “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”, even though a hypothetical entirely passive lurker (who doesn’t interact with the site at all) would be completely fine. In any case, I think this section warrants a much weaker-sounding conclusion. After all, aren’t we fine with anyone who (to keep the metaphor) doesn’t burn or trash the garden?
“We treat beliefs as being about shaping your anticipations of what you’ll observe[6]” → I currently don’t understand the point of this sentence. Maybe something like “We consider the purpose of beliefs that they shape your anticipations of what you’ll observe[6]”? That still sounds weird. I’m genuinely not sure, and thus in any case recommend rewriting this sentence.
“LessWrong is also integrated with the Alignment Forum” → If you’re going to mention the Aligment Forum, then I suggest also explaining what it is in one short sentence.
A significant chunk of the section “Foundational reading” is a redundant repetition of the section “Philosophical Heritage: The Sequences”.
Throughout the essay, there are several instances of writing of the form “A/B/C”, and in all cases they would read better as an actual sentence with commas etc.
“The standard advice for how to vote is: upvote if you want to see more of something, downvote if you want to see less.” → Isn’t the actual advice to upvote if you want yourself and others to see more of something? Or phrased differently, “Upvote if you want LW to feature more of X”.
“Different users have different vote strengths based on how many upvotes/downvotes they’ve received.” → This phrasing seems needlessly roundabout. Long-term community members with higher karma have stronger votes, that’s it.
“we will soon be experimenting with automatic rate limits: users with very low or negative karma will be automatically restricted in how frequently they can post and comment. For example, someone who’s quickly posted several negative-karma posts will need to wait before being allowed to post the next one.” → This entire paragraph is no longer up-to-date.
Nitpicky language feedback
“Why a new user guide?” (first heading) → This might be clearer as “Why a guide for new users?”
“Our definition[3] of rationality is that a more rational reasoning process tends to arrive at true beliefs and good decisions more often than a less rational process.” → I know what you’re going for here, but as written this sounds like you’re presupposing your conclusion.
“If many of these apply to you, then LessWrong might be the place for you.” → “might be a good place for you”
Pretty much all bullet points after “Some of the features that set LessWrong apart:” look like full sentences and should therefore end on a period.
“Rather than treating belief as binary, we use probabilistic credences to express our certainty/uncertainty.” → would be shorter as “express our (un)certainty”
“Between 2006 and 2009, Eliezer Yudkowsky spent two years writing a sequence of blog posts” → That sounds like a confusing contradiction, unless it’s a puzzle whose gotcha answer is “In 2007 and 2008″. Were the sequence written in 2 years or in 3-4 years?
“blog posts that shared his philosophy/beliefs/models about rationality” → philosophy, beliefs, and models”
“The Concepts Page shows a very long list of topics on which LessWrong has posts. You can use that page to find posts that cover topics interesting to you, and see what the style is on LessWrong” → This reads a bit weirdly and could be rephrased.
The “Helpful Tips” section is unpolished, with inconsistent phrasing etc.
“Two-Axis System” → “The Two-Axis Voting System”
“It’s possible to want to see more of something (e.g. interesting arguments) even if you disagree with them, or to think an argument is weak even though it’s for a conclusion you agree with. LessWrong makes it possible to express to see more/less of something separately from whether you agree/disagree with it. (Currently only comments.) This means that upvotes and downvotes on the main axis can be used to express judgments of quality separate from agreement. But the same spirit applies to posts too.” → Suggested phrasing: “Sometimes you might want to see more of something (like interesting arguments), even if you disagree with it, or to think an argument is weak even though it’s for a conclusion you agree with. On LessWrong you can express your desire to see more (or less) of something separately from whether you (dis)agree with it. (Currently only comments.) So with this voting system, you can express judgments of quality separate from agreement.”
“That page that exists so people can double-check our decisions.” → “That page exists so users can hold the LW mods accountable for their moderation decisions.”
“If we don’t like your submission, we mark it as rejected” → Weird phrasing. How about: “If we reject your submission as not being a good fit for LW”
“When there’s stuff that seems to make the site worse, in order of severity, we’ll apply the following:” → “stuff” seems too vague.
Sections with weird phrasing
“As I wrote above, this document is so not being approved on your first submission doesn’t come as a surprise.” → Weird phrasing.
“hopefully this intro sets you up for good reading and good engagement with LessWrong!” → Weird phrasing.
“The LessWrong mod team like to be transparent about our moderation process.” → Weird phrasing.
“Back in 2009, it took more perception and willingness to discern the truth of weird ideas like AIs being powerful and dangerous in the nearish future.” → Weird phrasing.
Feedback on language, style, and phrasing
The table of contents at the top is currently not synced with the actual headings, and is missing most of the subheadings.
“My hope is that if LessWrong resonates with your values and interests, this guide will help you become a valued member of community. And if LessWrong isn’t the place for you, this guide will help you have a good “visit” or simply seek other pastures.” → Is the second sentence really necessary?
“We strive to maintain a culture that’s uncommon for web forums[1] and to stay true to our values.” → The “stay true to our values” part of the sentence seems rather empty because the values aren’t actually listed until a later section. How about “We strive to main a culture and values which are uncommon for web forums” or some such?
Re: “Our definition of rationality” in the section ‘What LessWrong is about: “Rationality”’: Instead of the current footnote, I’d prefer to see a brief disambiguation on what similar-sounding concepts LW-style rationality is not equivalent to, namely philosophical rationalism. And even most of the criticisms on the Wikipedia page on rationality don’t refer to the LW concept of rationality, but something different and much older.
“If you’re on board with our program and will help make our community more successful at its goals, then welcome!” → I know what you’re going for here, but this currently sounds like “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”, even though a hypothetical entirely passive lurker (who doesn’t interact with the site at all) would be completely fine. In any case, I think this section warrants a much weaker-sounding conclusion. After all, aren’t we fine with anyone who (to keep the metaphor) doesn’t burn or trash the garden?
“We treat beliefs as being about shaping your anticipations of what you’ll observe[6]” → I currently don’t understand the point of this sentence. Maybe something like “We consider the purpose of beliefs that they shape your anticipations of what you’ll observe[6]”? That still sounds weird. I’m genuinely not sure, and thus in any case recommend rewriting this sentence.
“LessWrong is also integrated with the Alignment Forum” → If you’re going to mention the Aligment Forum, then I suggest also explaining what it is in one short sentence.
A significant chunk of the section “Foundational reading” is a redundant repetition of the section “Philosophical Heritage: The Sequences”.
Throughout the essay, there are several instances of writing of the form “A/B/C”, and in all cases they would read better as an actual sentence with commas etc.
“The standard advice for how to vote is: upvote if you want to see more of something, downvote if you want to see less.” → Isn’t the actual advice to upvote if you want yourself and others to see more of something? Or phrased differently, “Upvote if you want LW to feature more of X”.
“Different users have different vote strengths based on how many upvotes/downvotes they’ve received.” → This phrasing seems needlessly roundabout. Long-term community members with higher karma have stronger votes, that’s it.
“we will soon be experimenting with automatic rate limits: users with very low or negative karma will be automatically restricted in how frequently they can post and comment. For example, someone who’s quickly posted several negative-karma posts will need to wait before being allowed to post the next one.” → This entire paragraph is no longer up-to-date.
Nitpicky language feedback
“Why a new user guide?” (first heading) → This might be clearer as “Why a guide for new users?”
“Our definition[3] of rationality is that a more rational reasoning process tends to arrive at true beliefs and good decisions more often than a less rational process.” → I know what you’re going for here, but as written this sounds like you’re presupposing your conclusion.
“If many of these apply to you, then LessWrong might be the place for you.” → “might be a good place for you”
Pretty much all bullet points after “Some of the features that set LessWrong apart:” look like full sentences and should therefore end on a period.
“Rather than treating belief as binary, we use probabilistic credences to express our certainty/uncertainty.” → would be shorter as “express our (un)certainty”
“examples here” → You can find some examples here.”
“Between 2006 and 2009, Eliezer Yudkowsky spent two years writing a sequence of blog posts” → That sounds like a confusing contradiction, unless it’s a puzzle whose gotcha answer is “In 2007 and 2008″. Were the sequence written in 2 years or in 3-4 years?
“blog posts that shared his philosophy/beliefs/models about rationality” → philosophy, beliefs, and models”
“The Concepts Page shows a very long list of topics on which LessWrong has posts. You can use that page to find posts that cover topics interesting to you, and see what the style is on LessWrong” → This reads a bit weirdly and could be rephrased.
The “Helpful Tips” section is unpolished, with inconsistent phrasing etc.
“Two-Axis System” → “The Two-Axis Voting System”
“It’s possible to want to see more of something (e.g. interesting arguments) even if you disagree with them, or to think an argument is weak even though it’s for a conclusion you agree with. LessWrong makes it possible to express to see more/less of something separately from whether you agree/disagree with it. (Currently only comments.) This means that upvotes and downvotes on the main axis can be used to express judgments of quality separate from agreement. But the same spirit applies to posts too.” → Suggested phrasing: “Sometimes you might want to see more of something (like interesting arguments), even if you disagree with it, or to think an argument is weak even though it’s for a conclusion you agree with. On LessWrong you can express your desire to see more (or less) of something separately from whether you (dis)agree with it. (Currently only comments.) So with this voting system, you can express judgments of quality separate from agreement.”
“That page that exists so people can double-check our decisions.” → “That page exists so users can hold the LW mods accountable for their moderation decisions.”
“If we don’t like your submission, we mark it as rejected” → Weird phrasing. How about: “If we reject your submission as not being a good fit for LW”
“When there’s stuff that seems to make the site worse, in order of severity, we’ll apply the following:” → “stuff” seems too vague.
Sections with weird phrasing
“As I wrote above, this document is so not being approved on your first submission doesn’t come as a surprise.” → Weird phrasing.
“hopefully this intro sets you up for good reading and good engagement with LessWrong!” → Weird phrasing.
“The LessWrong mod team like to be transparent about our moderation process.” → Weird phrasing.
“Back in 2009, it took more perception and willingness to discern the truth of weird ideas like AIs being powerful and dangerous in the nearish future.” → Weird phrasing.