Personally, I seem to have a few instances available where I’ve done just that.
So now your karma depends significantly on how well you can find a Yudkowskian citation for whatever you’re arguing.
I’m quite sick of this rhetorical trick, of conflating Eliezer with the Sequences in order to justify slinging the word ‘cult’ around. LessWrong is built on the bedrock of the Sequences. To the extent that we get anything done here, it’s because we don’t get bogged down in rehashing any of the million problems that the Sequences solved or dissolved. Honestly, this website would be one giant morass of interconnected arguments over definitions without theseposts alone. The Sequences are valuable and should influence, guide, and control discussion on LessWrong. It’s one of the ways we have of being less wrong! That the Sequences were written by Eliezer Yudkowsky is incidental to their importance on this website. Stop pretending like everything he’s ever written is SIAI-cult-propaganda.
LessWrong is built on the bedrock of the Sequences.
Agreed, but is that doesn’t mean that linking to them is the high watermark of Bayesian thought or whatever you’re trying to measure?
You’d generally link to the sequences when you’re speaking with someone who hasn’t read them. So basically your interactions with new users and trolls now carry far more weight than they should.
Why would you link to the sequences when you’re speaking with someone who’s familiar with them? It’d be like bringing up ‘we breathe oxygen’ every few sentences.
Yes, the sequences are important. But that doesn’t automatically make linking to them a good metric for usefulness to the community.
Stop pretending like everything he’s ever written is SIAI-cult-propaganda.
Never claimed that, never will.
Personally, I seem to have a few instances available where I’ve done just that.
Have you linked to every single comment you think is relevant/useful/thoughtful? To 80% of them? 60?
Or, if not that, just the most linked to posts. (It’d be cool if one of the Trike Apps people could run a regex (e.g. “lesswrong.com/[^ ]*”) over the database (reddit_data_comment[key=data] and reddit_data_article[key=article], I believe) and publish a .txt dump of that somewhere.)
I’ll be in the TrikeApps office about a week from now; I’ll do my best to remember this and have something workable ready to offer to them; can’t promise they’ll be excited about data-mining LessWrong though.
I’ve knocked out something quickly. I’ve got no idea how fast it will be over the ~250000 comments (there are probably some performance improvements by replacing “for … in cursor” with a paged retrieve).
I believe that that will only keep public posts (so no drafts or deleted posts), I’m not so sure about the comments though (I’m not sure if comments on deleted articles are kept or not, or if there is such a thing as a “private” comment that I’m not filtering properly).
That script is a “best case” situation, since it records the origin along with the target of each link (and the date/karma too). If that data was to be published, I’ll do try some analysis (and maybe even a proper article!).
Yes, and that actually seems like a really useful metric. PageRank for comments linking Sequence posts is another incredibly useful metric.
So now your karma depends significantly on how well you can find a Yudkowskian citation for whatever you’re arguing.
Nope. we’re not a cult. Not at all.
(Or, for that matter, you karma now depends significantly on how gratuitously you spray your comment with links.)
No, because.… How often do you link to comments?
Personally, I seem to have a few instances available where I’ve done just that.
I’m quite sick of this rhetorical trick, of conflating Eliezer with the Sequences in order to justify slinging the word ‘cult’ around. LessWrong is built on the bedrock of the Sequences. To the extent that we get anything done here, it’s because we don’t get bogged down in rehashing any of the million problems that the Sequences solved or dissolved. Honestly, this website would be one giant morass of interconnected arguments over definitions without these posts alone. The Sequences are valuable and should influence, guide, and control discussion on LessWrong. It’s one of the ways we have of being less wrong! That the Sequences were written by Eliezer Yudkowsky is incidental to their importance on this website. Stop pretending like everything he’s ever written is SIAI-cult-propaganda.
Agreed, but is that doesn’t mean that linking to them is the high watermark of Bayesian thought or whatever you’re trying to measure?
You’d generally link to the sequences when you’re speaking with someone who hasn’t read them. So basically your interactions with new users and trolls now carry far more weight than they should.
Why would you link to the sequences when you’re speaking with someone who’s familiar with them? It’d be like bringing up ‘we breathe oxygen’ every few sentences.
Yes, the sequences are important. But that doesn’t automatically make linking to them a good metric for usefulness to the community.
Never claimed that, never will.
Have you linked to every single comment you think is relevant/useful/thoughtful? To 80% of them? 60?
As far as I understand, PageRank rewards the target of the link, not the origin. So this would reward oft-cited articles.
That’s what it generally does, but it doesn’t look like that’s what shokwave was thinking of (judging by the context).
If that was what he was saying, consider my last comment retracted. (Except for the very last sentence.)
I’d be interested in PageRank on LW.
Or, if not that, just the most linked to posts. (It’d be cool if one of the Trike Apps people could run a regex (e.g. “lesswrong.com/[^ ]*”) over the database (reddit_data_comment[key=data] and reddit_data_article[key=article], I believe) and publish a .txt dump of that somewhere.)
I’ll be in the TrikeApps office about a week from now; I’ll do my best to remember this and have something workable ready to offer to them; can’t promise they’ll be excited about data-mining LessWrong though.
Thanks! (I’m not getting my hopes up for it.)
I’ve knocked out something quickly. I’ve got no idea how fast it will be over the ~250000 comments (there are probably some performance improvements by replacing “for … in cursor” with a paged retrieve).
I believe that that will only keep public posts (so no drafts or deleted posts), I’m not so sure about the comments though (I’m not sure if comments on deleted articles are kept or not, or if there is such a thing as a “private” comment that I’m not filtering properly).
That script is a “best case” situation, since it records the origin along with the target of each link (and the date/karma too). If that data was to be published, I’ll do try some analysis (and maybe even a proper article!).