I’m uncertain about the best process here (this entire review is a bit of experiment and I think it’s fine to tweak rules on the fly). I do think there’s a particular value for checking which things have actually been employed in some fashion, as opposed to just “seeming good.”
I think it’s probably fine to go ahead and nominate them, and in the nomination, note specifically if you haven’t directly made use of them.
One possible outcome is that this process reminds other people who have used it, and those people then write up their actual experiences. Another possible outcome is that we decide it’s fine to include things that feel time-tested-if-not-actually-used the way Vaniver described. Another option is simply that you bump it into people’s public consciousness, and then it isn’t included this year, but next year people have the opportunity to suggest older posts that had previously fallen through the cracks.
(If we do this again next year, my current guess is that it’d involve not just “Best of 2019” but sort of an ongoing appraisal of the LW-o-sphere’s intellectual landscape, where “Best of 2019″ is the primary new focus but at least some thought is dedicated to older stuff)
That all said...
(I guess I could just comment on them, but that doesn’t seem like the sort of thing comments are for).
Why ever not? That seems like a totally valid use of a comment.
I do think there’s a particular value for checking which things have actually been employed in some fashion, as opposed to just “seeming good.”
I certainly agree, and think that it makes a lot of sense to reward posts that have been valuable to their readers, as well as spreading them so that they can provide that same value to those who haven’t yet read them.
I think it’s probably fine to go ahead and nominate them, and in the nomination, note specifically if you haven’t directly made use of them.
Understood.
Why ever not? That seems like a totally valid use of a comment.
I think that comments should be used for advancing discussions and/or providing info that can’t be provided other ways. To me, a comment saying “this is a good post that you should read” communicates an upvote plus the identity of the upvoter, and therefore seems primarily a social move.
To me, a comment saying “this is a good post that you should read” communicates an upvote plus the identity of the upvoter, and therefore seems primarily a social move.
That sounds about right, but I think there’s a few aspects that make that social move valuable:
a) on regular posts in regular circumstances, since comments are a bit higher effort than votes, and comments are at least somewhat more rewarding that votes (at least for me, as an author), I think it’s good for at least a couple people to respond “this was great!”. Writing a flawless excellent post and then receive upvotes-but-crickets-chirping is a sort of sad experience. I think if 2-3 people have already written such a comment it gets a bit repetitive but I think it’s a fine norm.
b) there’s a practical element for replying to a post which is that it bumps the post to the top of recent discussion and gives it a bit more life. I think this is bad-in-excess, but fine in moderation – if a post is still good 2 years later, it’s good to give it periodic spikes of attention.
c) In particular, a comment two years after-the-fact that says “I just found this after two years and it still seems good” is conveying additional information beyond “I liked it” – it’s saying something about how time-tested the content.
Nod. This makes sense as a thing people might vary quite a bit on. (To be clear, I certainly get dramatically more value out comments that actually engage). It’d be pretty reasonable for you to throw up a question-post about it or something.
I’m uncertain about the best process here (this entire review is a bit of experiment and I think it’s fine to tweak rules on the fly). I do think there’s a particular value for checking which things have actually been employed in some fashion, as opposed to just “seeming good.”
I think it’s probably fine to go ahead and nominate them, and in the nomination, note specifically if you haven’t directly made use of them.
One possible outcome is that this process reminds other people who have used it, and those people then write up their actual experiences. Another possible outcome is that we decide it’s fine to include things that feel time-tested-if-not-actually-used the way Vaniver described. Another option is simply that you bump it into people’s public consciousness, and then it isn’t included this year, but next year people have the opportunity to suggest older posts that had previously fallen through the cracks.
(If we do this again next year, my current guess is that it’d involve not just “Best of 2019” but sort of an ongoing appraisal of the LW-o-sphere’s intellectual landscape, where “Best of 2019″ is the primary new focus but at least some thought is dedicated to older stuff)
That all said...
Why ever not? That seems like a totally valid use of a comment.
I certainly agree, and think that it makes a lot of sense to reward posts that have been valuable to their readers, as well as spreading them so that they can provide that same value to those who haven’t yet read them.
Understood.
I think that comments should be used for advancing discussions and/or providing info that can’t be provided other ways. To me, a comment saying “this is a good post that you should read” communicates an upvote plus the identity of the upvoter, and therefore seems primarily a social move.
That sounds about right, but I think there’s a few aspects that make that social move valuable:
a) on regular posts in regular circumstances, since comments are a bit higher effort than votes, and comments are at least somewhat more rewarding that votes (at least for me, as an author), I think it’s good for at least a couple people to respond “this was great!”. Writing a flawless excellent post and then receive upvotes-but-crickets-chirping is a sort of sad experience. I think if 2-3 people have already written such a comment it gets a bit repetitive but I think it’s a fine norm.
b) there’s a practical element for replying to a post which is that it bumps the post to the top of recent discussion and gives it a bit more life. I think this is bad-in-excess, but fine in moderation – if a post is still good 2 years later, it’s good to give it periodic spikes of attention.
c) In particular, a comment two years after-the-fact that says “I just found this after two years and it still seems good” is conveying additional information beyond “I liked it” – it’s saying something about how time-tested the content.
I’d be interested in a poll on this, since I don’t have this experience for comments that don’t build on the content of the post.
Nod. This makes sense as a thing people might vary quite a bit on. (To be clear, I certainly get dramatically more value out comments that actually engage). It’d be pretty reasonable for you to throw up a question-post about it or something.
Have thrown up the question post.