Is it just me, or are people not commenting nearly as much on LW2 as they used to on LW1? I think one of the goals of LW2 is to encourage experimentation with different norms, but these experiments impose a cost on commenters (who have to learn the new norms both declaratively and procedurally) without giving a clear immediate benefit, which might reduce the net incentive to comment even further. So it seems like before these experiments can start, we need to figure out why people aren’t commenting much, and do something about that.
I think one of the goals of LW2 is to encourage experimentation with different norms, but these experiments impose a cost on commenters (who have to learn the new norms both declaratively and procedurally) without giving a clear immediate benefit, which might reduce the net incentive to comment even further.
That is a good point, to at least keep in mind. I hadn’t explicitly been weighing that cost. I do think I mostly endorse have more barriers to commenting (and fewer comments), but may not be weighing things right.
Off the cuff thoughts:
Fractal Dunbar
Part of the reason I comment less now (or at least feel like I do? maybe should check the data) than I did 5 months ago is that the site is now large enough that it’s not a practical goal to read everything and participate in every conversation without a) spending a lot of time, b) feeling lost/drowned out in the noise.
(In particular, I don’t participate in SSC comments despite having way more people due to the “drowned out in the noise” thing).
So, one of the intended goals underlying the “multiple norms” thingy is to have a sort of fractal structure, where sections of the site tend to cap out around Dunbar-number of people that can actually know each other and expect each other to stick to high-quality-discussion norms.
Already discouraging comments that don’t fit
I know at least some people are not participating in LW because they don’t like the comment culture (for various reasons outlined in the Public Archipelago post). So the cost of “the norms are causing some people to bounce off” is already being paid, and the question is whether the cost is higher or lower under the overlapping-norm-islands paradigm.
I mostly stopped commenting and I think it’s because 1) the AI safety discussion got higher cost to follow (more discussion happening faster with a lot of context) and 2) the non-AI safety discussion seems to have mostly gotten worse. There seem to be more newer commenters writing things that aren’t very good (some of which are secretly Eugine or something?) and people seem to be arguing a lot instead of collaboratively trying to figure out what’s true.
we need to figure out why people aren’t commenting much
My hypothesis would be that a) the ratio of post/day to visitors/day is higher on LW2 than it was on LW1, and so b) the comments are just spread more thin.
Would be curious whether the site stats bear that out.
To save everyone else some time, here’s the relevant graph, basically showing that amount of comments has remained fairly constant for the past 4 months at least (while a different graph showed traffic as rising, suggesting ESRog’s hypothesis seems true)
Is it just me, or are people not commenting nearly as much on LW2 as they used to on LW1?
One hypothesis I thought of recently for this is that there are now more local rationalist communities where people can meet their social needs, which reduces their motivations for joining online discussions.
Is it just me, or are people not commenting nearly as much on LW2 as they used to on LW1? I think one of the goals of LW2 is to encourage experimentation with different norms, but these experiments impose a cost on commenters (who have to learn the new norms both declaratively and procedurally) without giving a clear immediate benefit, which might reduce the net incentive to comment even further. So it seems like before these experiments can start, we need to figure out why people aren’t commenting much, and do something about that.
That is a good point, to at least keep in mind. I hadn’t explicitly been weighing that cost. I do think I mostly endorse have more barriers to commenting (and fewer comments), but may not be weighing things right.
Off the cuff thoughts:
Fractal Dunbar
Part of the reason I comment less now (or at least feel like I do? maybe should check the data) than I did 5 months ago is that the site is now large enough that it’s not a practical goal to read everything and participate in every conversation without a) spending a lot of time, b) feeling lost/drowned out in the noise.
(In particular, I don’t participate in SSC comments despite having way more people due to the “drowned out in the noise” thing).
So, one of the intended goals underlying the “multiple norms” thingy is to have a sort of fractal structure, where sections of the site tend to cap out around Dunbar-number of people that can actually know each other and expect each other to stick to high-quality-discussion norms.
Already discouraging comments that don’t fit
I know at least some people are not participating in LW because they don’t like the comment culture (for various reasons outlined in the Public Archipelago post). So the cost of “the norms are causing some people to bounce off” is already being paid, and the question is whether the cost is higher or lower under the overlapping-norm-islands paradigm.
I mostly stopped commenting and I think it’s because 1) the AI safety discussion got higher cost to follow (more discussion happening faster with a lot of context) and 2) the non-AI safety discussion seems to have mostly gotten worse. There seem to be more newer commenters writing things that aren’t very good (some of which are secretly Eugine or something?) and people seem to be arguing a lot instead of collaboratively trying to figure out what’s true.
If the site is too big it could be divided in one sections. That would effectively make it smaller.
I believe the content do far is a bit different. Worth being curious about what changed.
Yes we have less comments about day on lw2.
My hypothesis would be that a) the ratio of post/day to visitors/day is higher on LW2 than it was on LW1, and so b) the comments are just spread more thin.
Would be curious whether the site stats bear that out.
See the graphs I posted on this month’s open thread for some relevant data.
To save everyone else some time, here’s the relevant graph, basically showing that amount of comments has remained fairly constant for the past 4 months at least (while a different graph showed traffic as rising, suggesting ESRog’s hypothesis seems true)
This is great. Would love to see graphs going back further too, since Wei was asking about LW2 vs LW1, not just since earlier in the LW2 beta.
One hypothesis I thought of recently for this is that there are now more local rationalist communities where people can meet their social needs, which reduces their motivations for joining online discussions.