When we’re processing many new user-posts a day, we don’t have much time to evaluate each post.
So, one principle I think is fairly likely to become a “new user guideline” is “Make it pretty clear off the bat what the point of the post is.” In ~3 sentences, try to make it clear who your target audience is, and what core point you’re trying to communicate to them. If you’re able to quickly gesture at the biggest-bit-of-evidence or argument that motivates your point, even better. (Though I understand sometimes this is hard).
This isn’t necessarily how you have to write all the time on LessWrong! But your first post is something like an admissions-essay and should be optimized more for being legibly coherent and useful. (And honestly I think most LW posts should lean more in this direction)
In some sense this is similar to submitting something to a journal or magazine. Editors get tons of submissions. For your first couple posts, don’t aim to write something that takes a lot of works for us to evaluate.
Corollary: Posts that are more likely to end up in the reject pile include...
Fiction, especially if it looks like it’s trying to make some kind of philosophical point, while being wrapped in a structure that makes that harder to evaluate. (I think good fiction plays a valuable role on LessWrong, I just don’t recommend it until you’ve gotten more of a handle of the culture and background knowledge)
Long manifestos. Like fiction, these are sometimes valuable. They can communicate something like an overarching way-of-seeing-the-world that is valuable in a different way from individual factual claims. But, a) I think it’s a reasonable system to first make some more succinct posts, build up some credibility, and then ask the LessWrongOSphere to evaluate your lengthy treatise. b) honestly… your first manifesto just probably isn’t very good. That’s okay. No judgment. I’ve written manifestos that weren’t very good and they were an important part of my learning process. Even my more recent manifestos tend to be less well received than my posts that argue a particular object-level claim.
Some users have asked: “Okay, but, when will I be allowed to post the long poetic prose that expresses the nuances of the idea I have in my heart?”
Often the answer is, well, when you get better at thinking and expressing yourself clearly enough that you’ve written a significantly different piece.
I’ve always like the the pithy advice “you have to know the rules to break the rules” which I do consider valid in many domains.
Before I let users break generally good rules like “explain what your point it up front”, I want to know that they could keep to the rule before they don’t. The posts of many first time users give me the feeling that their author isn’t being rambly on purpose, they don’t know how to write otherwise (or aren’t willing to).
Succinctly explain the main point.
When we’re processing many new user-posts a day, we don’t have much time to evaluate each post.
So, one principle I think is fairly likely to become a “new user guideline” is “Make it pretty clear off the bat what the point of the post is.” In ~3 sentences, try to make it clear who your target audience is, and what core point you’re trying to communicate to them. If you’re able to quickly gesture at the biggest-bit-of-evidence or argument that motivates your point, even better. (Though I understand sometimes this is hard).
This isn’t necessarily how you have to write all the time on LessWrong! But your first post is something like an admissions-essay and should be optimized more for being legibly coherent and useful. (And honestly I think most LW posts should lean more in this direction)
In some sense this is similar to submitting something to a journal or magazine. Editors get tons of submissions. For your first couple posts, don’t aim to write something that takes a lot of works for us to evaluate.
Corollary: Posts that are more likely to end up in the reject pile include...
Fiction, especially if it looks like it’s trying to make some kind of philosophical point, while being wrapped in a structure that makes that harder to evaluate. (I think good fiction plays a valuable role on LessWrong, I just don’t recommend it until you’ve gotten more of a handle of the culture and background knowledge)
Long manifestos. Like fiction, these are sometimes valuable. They can communicate something like an overarching way-of-seeing-the-world that is valuable in a different way from individual factual claims. But, a) I think it’s a reasonable system to first make some more succinct posts, build up some credibility, and then ask the LessWrongOSphere to evaluate your lengthy treatise. b) honestly… your first manifesto just probably isn’t very good. That’s okay. No judgment. I’ve written manifestos that weren’t very good and they were an important part of my learning process. Even my more recent manifestos tend to be less well received than my posts that argue a particular object-level claim.
Some users have asked: “Okay, but, when will I be allowed to post the long poetic prose that expresses the nuances of the idea I have in my heart?”
Often the answer is, well, when you get better at thinking and expressing yourself clearly enough that you’ve written a significantly different piece.
I’ve always like the the pithy advice “you have to know the rules to break the rules” which I do consider valid in many domains.
Before I let users break generally good rules like “explain what your point it up front”, I want to know that they could keep to the rule before they don’t. The posts of many first time users give me the feeling that their author isn’t being rambly on purpose, they don’t know how to write otherwise (or aren’t willing to).