In my view, you’re asking the wrong question. The major contributors are doing great; they have attracted their own audiences. A better question might be: how can LW grow promising new posters in to future major contributors (who may later migrate off the platform)?
I had some ideas that don’t require changing the LW source that I’ll now create polls for:
Should Less Wrong encourage readers to write appreciative private messages for posts that they like?
[pollid:976]
Should we add something to the FAQ about how having people tear your ideas apart is normal and expected behavior and not necessarily a sign that you’re doing anything wrong?
[pollid:977]
Should we add something to the FAQ encouraging people to use smiley faces when they write critical comments? (Smiley faces take up very little space, so don’t affect the signal-to-noise-ratio much, and help reinforce the idea that criticism is normal and expected. The FAQ could explain this.)
[pollid:978]
We could start testing these ideas informally ASAP, make a FAQ change if polls are bullish on the ideas, and then announce them more broadly in a Discussion post if they seem to be working well. To keep track of how the ideas seem to be working out, people could post their experiences with them in this subthread.
In general, we could improve the onboarding experience of LW.
“Hello, I see you found LW. Here is your welcome package which consists of a first-aid trauma kit, a consent form for amputations, and a coupon for a PTSD therapy session...”
I imagine there are UI design best practices, like watching new users try out the site, that could be followed. A similarly serious approach I’ve seen is having a designated “help out the newbie” role, either as someone people are encouraged to approach or specifically pairing mentees with mentors.
Both of those probably cost more than they deliver. A more reasonable approach would be having two home pages: one for logged-in users that probably links to /r/all/new (or the list version), and one for new users that explains more about LW, and maybe has a flowchart about where to start reading based on interests.
So the homepage already explains some stuff about LW. What do you think is missing?
I’d guess we can get 80% of the value of a flowchart with some kind of bulleted question/recommendation list like the one at http://lesswrong.com/about/ Maybe each bullet should link to more posts though? Or recommend an entire sequence/tag/wiki page/something else? And the bullets could be better chosen?
It looks like the About page has been in approximately its current form since September 2012, including the placement of the FAQ link. For users who have discovered LW since September 2012, how have you interacted with the FAQ?
[pollid:981]
If you spent time reading it, did you find it useful?
[pollid:982]
Should we increase its prominence by linking to it from the home page too?
I figure an exhaustive FAQ isn’t that bad, since it’s indexed by question… you don’t have to read all the questions, just the ones you’re interested in.
No, it is not bad at all. But it does what it says on the tin, answers questions. When starting with LW from zero there are no questions yet or not many, but more like exploration.
I think that while appreciative messages are (I imagine) pleasant to get, I don’t think they are the highest form of praise that a poster can get. I imagine that if I wrote a LW post, the highest form of praise to me would be comments that take the ideas expressed in a post (provided they are actually interesting) and develop them further, perhaps create new ideas that would build upon them. I imagine that seeing other people synthesizing their ideas with your ideas would be perhaps the best praise a poster could get.
While comments that nitpick the edge cases of the ideas expressed in a post obviously have their value, often they barely touch the main thesis of the post. An author might find it annoying having to respond to people who mostly nitpick his/her offhand remarks, instead of engaging with the main ideas of the post which the author finds the most interesting (that’s why he/she wrote it). The situation when you write a comment and somehow your offhand remark becomes the main target of responses (whereas nobody comments on the main idea you’ve tried say) is quite common.
I am not saying that we should discourage people from commenting on remarks that are not central to the post or comment. I am trying to say that arguing about the main thesis is probably much more pleasant than arguing about offhand remarks, and, as I have said before, seeing other people take your ideas and develop them further is even more pleasant. Of course, only if those ideas are actually any good. That said, even if the idea is flawed, perhaps there is a grain of truth that can be salvaged? For example, maybe the idea works under some kind of very specific conditions? I think that most people would be more likely to post if they knew that even commenters discovered flaws in their ideas, the same commenters would be willing to help to identify whether something can be done to fix those flaws.
(This comments only covers LW posts (and comments) where posters present their own ideas. Not all posts are like that, e.g. many summarize arguments, articles and books by others)
Maybe it would be a good thing for the site if people were encouraged to write critical reviews of something in their fields, the way SSC does? It has been mentioned that criticizing is easier than creating.
I do have something specific in mind (about how plant physiology is often divorced from population research), but I am in a minority here, so it might be more interesting for most people to read about other stuff.
I am in a minority here, so it might be more interesting for most people to read about other stuff
You mean you are studying a field most LWers are unfamiliar with? Well that means we can learn more from your post, right? ;)
If people don’t find it interesting they won’t read it. Little harm done. Polls indicate that LWers want to see more content, and I think you’re displaying the exact sort of self-effacing attitude that is holding us back :)
I’m not guaranteeing that people will vote up your post or anything, but the entire point of the voting system is to help people find good content and ignore bad content. So upvoted posts are more valuable than downvoted posts are harmful.
Thank you, I will do it ASAP, I’m just a bit rushed by PhD schedule and some other work that can be done only in summer. Do you have similar observations? It would be great to compile them into a post, because my own experience is based more on literature and less on personal communication, for personal reasons.
I really don’t have any similar observations, since I mostly focused on biochem and computational bio in school.
I’m actually not entirely sure what details you’re thinking of—I’m imagining something like the influence of selective pressure from other members of the same species, which could cover things like how redwoods are so tall because other redwoods block out light below the canopy. On the other hand, insight into the dynamics of population biologists and those studying plant physiology would also be interesting.
According to the 2014 survey we have about 30 biologists on here, and there are considerably more people here who take an interest in such things. Go ahead and post—the community might say they want less of it, but I’d bet at 4:1 odds that the community will be receptive.
No, I meant rather what between-different-fields-of-biology observations you might have. It doesn’t matter what you study, specifically. It’s more like ‘but why did those biochists study the impact of gall on probiotics for a whole fortnight of cultivation, if every physiologist knows that the probiotic pill cannot possibly be stuck in the GI tract for so long? thing.’ Have you encountered this before?
I can come up with a few examples that seemed obvious that they wouldn’t work in retrospect, mostly having to do with gene insertion using A. tumefaciens, but none that I honestly predicted before I learned that they didn’t work. Generally, the biological research at my institution seemed to be pretty practical, if boring. On the other hand, I was an undergrad, so there may have been obvious mistakes I missed—that’s part of what I’d be interested in learning.
Oh, I really can’t tell you much about that:) In my field, it’s much more basic. Somehow, even though everyone knows that young ferns exist because adult ferns reproduce, there are very few studies that incorporate adult ferns into young ferns’ most crucial life choices (like, what to produce—sperm or eggs.) I have no idea why it is so beyond simple laboratory convenience. It is not even a mistake, it’s a complete orthogonality of study approaches.
Should we add something to the FAQ encouraging people to use smiley faces when they write critical comments?
Hmm. I typically see emoticons as tied to emotion, and am unsurprised to see that women use them more than men. While a LW that used emoticons well might be a warmer and more pleasant place, I’m worried about an uncanny valley.
Putting smiley faces on critical comments is likely to encourage putting smiley faces on anything that may be perceived as negative, which in turn will lead people to put smiley faces on actual hostility. Putting a smiley face on hostility just turns it into slightly more passive aggressive hostility (how dare you react to this as if it’s hostile, see, I put a smiley face on) and should be discouraged.
I also worry that if we start putting smiley faces on critical comments, we’ll get to the point where it’s expected and someone whose comments are perceived as hostile will be told “it’s your own fault—you should have put a smiley face on”.
Should we add something to the FAQ about how having people tear your ideas apart is normal and expected behavior and not necessarily a sign that you’re doing anything wrong?
Should we add something to the FAQ encouraging people to use smiley faces when they write critical comments?
I believe that the most LWers have some STEM background, so they are already familiar with such level of criticism, therefore criticism-is-normal disclaimers aren’t necessary. Am I wrong? :)
Should Less Wrong encourage readers to write appreciative private messages for posts that they like?
Positive reinforcement is a thing. But how are you going to efficiently encourage readers to do that? :) Also, we have karma system, which (partially?) solves the feedback problem.
I believe that the most LWers have some STEM background, so they are already familiar with such level of criticism, therefore criticism-is-normal disclaimers aren’t necessary. Am I wrong? :)
Possibly, given that lukeprog, Eliezer, and Yvain have all complained that writing LW posts is not very rewarding. Reframing criticism might do a bit to mitigate this effect on the margin :)
Positive reinforcement is a thing. But how are you going to efficiently encourage readers to do that? :) Also, we have karma system, which (partially?) solves the feedback problem.
One of the things that strikes me as interesting reading Eliezer’s old sequence posts is the positive comments that were heaped on him in the absence of a karma system. I imagine these were important in motivating him to write one post a day for several years straight. Nowadays we consider such comments low-signal and tell people to upvote instead. But getting upvotes is not as rewarding as getting appreciative comments in my view. I imagine that 10 verbal compliments would do much more for me than 10 upvotes. In terms of encouraging readers… like I said, put it in the FAQ and announce it in a discussion post. Every time someone sends me an encouraging PM, I get reminded to send others encouraging PMs when I like their work.
In my view, you’re asking the wrong question. The major contributors are doing great; they have attracted their own audiences. A better question might be: how can LW grow promising new posters in to future major contributors (who may later migrate off the platform)?
I had some ideas that don’t require changing the LW source that I’ll now create polls for:
Should Less Wrong encourage readers to write appreciative private messages for posts that they like?
[pollid:976]
Should we add something to the FAQ about how having people tear your ideas apart is normal and expected behavior and not necessarily a sign that you’re doing anything wrong?
[pollid:977]
Should we add something to the FAQ encouraging people to use smiley faces when they write critical comments? (Smiley faces take up very little space, so don’t affect the signal-to-noise-ratio much, and help reinforce the idea that criticism is normal and expected. The FAQ could explain this.)
[pollid:978]
We could start testing these ideas informally ASAP, make a FAQ change if polls are bullish on the ideas, and then announce them more broadly in a Discussion post if they seem to be working well. To keep track of how the ideas seem to be working out, people could post their experiences with them in this subthread.
Does anyone read the FAQ? Specifically, do the newbies look at the FAQ while being in the state of newbiedom?
At least some do. In general, we could improve the onboarding experience of LW.
“Hello, I see you found LW. Here is your welcome package which consists of a first-aid trauma kit, a consent form for amputations, and a coupon for a PTSD therapy session...”
X-)
...and a box of paperclips.
...please don’t use it to tease resident AIs, it’s likely to end very very badly...
What concrete actions could we take to improve the onboarding experience?
I imagine there are UI design best practices, like watching new users try out the site, that could be followed. A similarly serious approach I’ve seen is having a designated “help out the newbie” role, either as someone people are encouraged to approach or specifically pairing mentees with mentors.
Both of those probably cost more than they deliver. A more reasonable approach would be having two home pages: one for logged-in users that probably links to /r/all/new (or the list version), and one for new users that explains more about LW, and maybe has a flowchart about where to start reading based on interests.
So the homepage already explains some stuff about LW. What do you think is missing?
I’d guess we can get 80% of the value of a flowchart with some kind of bulleted question/recommendation list like the one at http://lesswrong.com/about/ Maybe each bullet should link to more posts though? Or recommend an entire sequence/tag/wiki page/something else? And the bullets could be better chosen?
...yes.
It’s linked to from the About page. Scroll to the bottom and you can see it has over 40,000 views: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/FAQ But it’s not among the top 10 most viewed pages on the LW wiki: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Special:Statistics So it seems as though the FAQ is not super discoverable.
It looks like the About page has been in approximately its current form since September 2012, including the placement of the FAQ link. For users who have discovered LW since September 2012, how have you interacted with the FAQ?
[pollid:981]
If you spent time reading it, did you find it useful?
[pollid:982]
Should we increase its prominence by linking to it from the home page too?
[pollid:983]
I went directly to the sequences, not sure why. Probably the sheer size of the list of contents was kind of intimidating.
“the sheer size of the list of contents”—hm? What are you referring to?
The FAQ
I figure an exhaustive FAQ isn’t that bad, since it’s indexed by question… you don’t have to read all the questions, just the ones you’re interested in.
No, it is not bad at all. But it does what it says on the tin, answers questions. When starting with LW from zero there are no questions yet or not many, but more like exploration.
I think that while appreciative messages are (I imagine) pleasant to get, I don’t think they are the highest form of praise that a poster can get. I imagine that if I wrote a LW post, the highest form of praise to me would be comments that take the ideas expressed in a post (provided they are actually interesting) and develop them further, perhaps create new ideas that would build upon them. I imagine that seeing other people synthesizing their ideas with your ideas would be perhaps the best praise a poster could get.
While comments that nitpick the edge cases of the ideas expressed in a post obviously have their value, often they barely touch the main thesis of the post. An author might find it annoying having to respond to people who mostly nitpick his/her offhand remarks, instead of engaging with the main ideas of the post which the author finds the most interesting (that’s why he/she wrote it). The situation when you write a comment and somehow your offhand remark becomes the main target of responses (whereas nobody comments on the main idea you’ve tried say) is quite common.
I am not saying that we should discourage people from commenting on remarks that are not central to the post or comment. I am trying to say that arguing about the main thesis is probably much more pleasant than arguing about offhand remarks, and, as I have said before, seeing other people take your ideas and develop them further is even more pleasant. Of course, only if those ideas are actually any good. That said, even if the idea is flawed, perhaps there is a grain of truth that can be salvaged? For example, maybe the idea works under some kind of very specific conditions? I think that most people would be more likely to post if they knew that even commenters discovered flaws in their ideas, the same commenters would be willing to help to identify whether something can be done to fix those flaws.
(This comments only covers LW posts (and comments) where posters present their own ideas. Not all posts are like that, e.g. many summarize arguments, articles and books by others)
Maybe it would be a good thing for the site if people were encouraged to write critical reviews of something in their fields, the way SSC does? It has been mentioned that criticizing is easier than creating.
Sounds like a good idea. Do it!
I do have something specific in mind (about how plant physiology is often divorced from population research), but I am in a minority here, so it might be more interesting for most people to read about other stuff.
You mean you are studying a field most LWers are unfamiliar with? Well that means we can learn more from your post, right? ;)
If people don’t find it interesting they won’t read it. Little harm done. Polls indicate that LWers want to see more content, and I think you’re displaying the exact sort of self-effacing attitude that is holding us back :)
I’m not guaranteeing that people will vote up your post or anything, but the entire point of the voting system is to help people find good content and ignore bad content. So upvoted posts are more valuable than downvoted posts are harmful.
I, for one, would be interested in such a post.
Thank you, I will do it ASAP, I’m just a bit rushed by PhD schedule and some other work that can be done only in summer. Do you have similar observations? It would be great to compile them into a post, because my own experience is based more on literature and less on personal communication, for personal reasons.
I really don’t have any similar observations, since I mostly focused on biochem and computational bio in school.
I’m actually not entirely sure what details you’re thinking of—I’m imagining something like the influence of selective pressure from other members of the same species, which could cover things like how redwoods are so tall because other redwoods block out light below the canopy. On the other hand, insight into the dynamics of population biologists and those studying plant physiology would also be interesting.
According to the 2014 survey we have about 30 biologists on here, and there are considerably more people here who take an interest in such things. Go ahead and post—the community might say they want less of it, but I’d bet at 4:1 odds that the community will be receptive.
...you know, this is actually odd. I would expect ten biologists to take over a free discussion board. Where are those people?
No, I meant rather what between-different-fields-of-biology observations you might have. It doesn’t matter what you study, specifically. It’s more like ‘but why did those biochists study the impact of gall on probiotics for a whole fortnight of cultivation, if every physiologist knows that the probiotic pill cannot possibly be stuck in the GI tract for so long? thing.’ Have you encountered this before?
I can come up with a few examples that seemed obvious that they wouldn’t work in retrospect, mostly having to do with gene insertion using A. tumefaciens, but none that I honestly predicted before I learned that they didn’t work. Generally, the biological research at my institution seemed to be pretty practical, if boring. On the other hand, I was an undergrad, so there may have been obvious mistakes I missed—that’s part of what I’d be interested in learning.
Oh, I really can’t tell you much about that:) In my field, it’s much more basic. Somehow, even though everyone knows that young ferns exist because adult ferns reproduce, there are very few studies that incorporate adult ferns into young ferns’ most crucial life choices (like, what to produce—sperm or eggs.) I have no idea why it is so beyond simple laboratory convenience. It is not even a mistake, it’s a complete orthogonality of study approaches.
I don’t recommend smiley faces—I don’t think they add much.
I do recommend that people be explicit if they like something about a post or comment.
Hmm. I typically see emoticons as tied to emotion, and am unsurprised to see that women use them more than men. While a LW that used emoticons well might be a warmer and more pleasant place, I’m worried about an uncanny valley.
Putting smiley faces on critical comments is likely to encourage putting smiley faces on anything that may be perceived as negative, which in turn will lead people to put smiley faces on actual hostility. Putting a smiley face on hostility just turns it into slightly more passive aggressive hostility (how dare you react to this as if it’s hostile, see, I put a smiley face on) and should be discouraged.
I also worry that if we start putting smiley faces on critical comments, we’ll get to the point where it’s expected and someone whose comments are perceived as hostile will be told “it’s your own fault—you should have put a smiley face on”.
I believe that the most LWers have some STEM background, so they are already familiar with such level of criticism, therefore criticism-is-normal disclaimers aren’t necessary. Am I wrong? :)
Positive reinforcement is a thing. But how are you going to efficiently encourage readers to do that? :) Also, we have karma system, which (partially?) solves the feedback problem.
Possibly, given that lukeprog, Eliezer, and Yvain have all complained that writing LW posts is not very rewarding. Reframing criticism might do a bit to mitigate this effect on the margin :)
One of the things that strikes me as interesting reading Eliezer’s old sequence posts is the positive comments that were heaped on him in the absence of a karma system. I imagine these were important in motivating him to write one post a day for several years straight. Nowadays we consider such comments low-signal and tell people to upvote instead. But getting upvotes is not as rewarding as getting appreciative comments in my view. I imagine that 10 verbal compliments would do much more for me than 10 upvotes. In terms of encouraging readers… like I said, put it in the FAQ and announce it in a discussion post. Every time someone sends me an encouraging PM, I get reminded to send others encouraging PMs when I like their work.