Yes. I’m not going to watch a 20 minute video about anything unless it is highly regarded or I think there are compelling reasons for me to watch it, since I can read the transcript of a 20 minute video in 1-2 minutes and most people are incompetent at leveraging the strengths of video to make watching a video more worthwhile than reading text.
Have you done transcription? it’s a pain in the ass. Put this video on while you make breakfast, if you want, or don’t watch or read it at all. I put it here because I thought you’d find it interesting; if listening to a video while you cook food is too much for you, please don’t trouble yourself for my sake.
Being blunt is not the same thing as being hostile, especially not if it’s in response to a question.
You asked whether a description would be enough to make the post valuable to people on this site. katydee thought that it would not make it reasonable for him, and explained why. You are of course under no obligation to cater to his wishes in particular if you deem them unreasonable, just like he is under no obligation to check out your video if he doesn’t consider it a worthwhile use of his time. But although he could have been a little less blunt, he never attacked you directly and merely explained his own feelings on the subject.
So my video is a waste of his time because it lacks description (which I added when somebody who was polite pointed out my error), but it is worth three comments decrying it, without an actual viewing?
Don’t take those kids of statements on LessWrong personally. Discourse on LessWrong can be blunt, but people generally are honest and don’t play that many games. I find the trade off worth it.
Check out my comment history I’m an evil “racist” too. I don’t get down voted though.
Oh I’m sure the downvotes for the main articles are almost entirely from newbs to the topic who are shocked SHOCKED to see this argument. And people who are thinking “this is true but I can’t have this on LW main it looks bad to non-LWers!”. And now that its in negative numbers people will dog pile on it (happens to most)… and that isn’t so much your fault (though I guarantee you you would have had a better response in discussion).
But in some of the later comments about the meta level you really did responded badly. You don’t seem to be currently calibrated to what kind of style LW posters want. Don’t worry it gets back to you after a while. (^_^)
You don’t seem to be currently calibrated to what kind of style LW posters want. Don’t worry it gets back to you after a while.
You seem to believe that aurini wants to have their comments upvoted, and is simply failing to implement that desire successfully. Have I correctly understood you?
If so, I’m curious as to what makes you conclude that. It seems unlikely to me.
Past behaviour is a excellent predictor of future behaviour. He used to be a good faith participant (check out his early comment history) on LessWrong and has obviously read at least some of the sequences and occasionally cite them outside of LW.
LessWronger posting norms and style are really different from some flame heavy parts of the internet. It can be hard to adjust.
GLaDOS, you are the first girl-computer to give me a bRoner.
The mind truly is the sexy organ, even for a playa like myself.
I may have to trust you to post the videos full of Truth in the future; I have three more posts, tops, before I burn out of karma. You must post them, while decrying me as a monster! That is how the fates say it must be.
GLaDOS, you are the first girl-computer to give me a bRoner.
The mind truly is the sexy organ, even for a playa like myself.
This sort of comment reinforces negative stereotypes pretty badly. There’s a perception that people who self-identify as “race realists” are often simply smart versions of “bros” and have generally sexist attitudes. How much of that is due to halo effects and tribal allegiance issues isn’t clear. But this sort of comment really doesn’t help matters.
I may have to trust you to post the videos full of Truth
Capitalizing truth is never a good sign. If you feel a need to do it, it may be a good moment to step back from the keyboard and think carefully about what you believe, why you believe it, and how to most effectively communicate those reasons to people who may not agree.
Remind me, JoshuaZ—who is the Pretntious Writer who captilizes Truth and Many Other Words, and has subcribers… and who is the pretentious prick who comments upon standards of writing behaviour?
You can burn in hell; GLaDOS is a bloody lady, and sexy as the day is long. She has class and internet bearing—something you clearly lack. I also suspect that you do not own a motorcycle. If you did, you’d be giving me an internet high-five, bro, and we’d be rocking out on skype, like True Men. Instead you argue with me about something that has no bearing to the topic at hand.
GLaDOS, you are the first girl-computer to give me a bRoner.
This is cool because this started out as my RP account, but if I was posting this under my real name or different nick comments like that would be creepy.
Note not everyone may get the reference so I suggest you stop. (~_^)
I feel I was no more hostile than—to use your argument—someone judging a competent black doctor as incompetent thanks to their priors about affirmative action.
Um, at the risk of re-igniting passions… you replied to a link I posted, which started a rather heated argument that attracted other commenters. (Unless you remember and your question was meant as an insult.)
My point is simply that, were you to provide an expanded description that might provide compelling reasons to watch your video, I would be more inclined to look into it—but a link submitted without context is extremely unlikely to get my attention.
People here really hate just link posts and this is mostly true of any subject. This may be because they can’t quickly skim them to make a rapid estimate of the value of information. But I think the really big thing is that most people just lazily assume a link is to non-original work.
Note that when people like gwern make badass research intensive posts they never just post a link to their website, they usually replicate the entire article on LW or at least quote extensively. Even in Discussion single link posts aren’t much liked.
I don’t really like this norm honestly, but it is an established one.
I appreciate the clarification. :) My bad—I’m surprised to hear that that is a problem, but that is life, eh?
I rewrote the description. What do you think? I don’t want you to go to all the effort of doing a transcript; I suspect it might take longer than the video itself (with all the false starts, etc). But I will not say no to it, either. Do you think it’s still necessary?
Much better, it is a good summary. Perhaps drop the Obama reference (keep the discussion on race line). For some strange reason any name-drop of an American politician in a post seems to cost it 5 or 10 karma instantly (politics is the mindkiller has become a mindkiller heh (^_^) )
I don’t want you to go to all the effort of doing a transcript; I suspect it might take longer than the video itself (with all the false starts, etc). But I will not say no to it, either. Do you think it’s still necessary?
Oh its ok, its not really necessary. A paragraph explaining what the key argument is and perhaps links to related posts work just fine. I was just offering to PM you a raw transcript of what your said, that I would type do as I watched. BTW So far I’m linking your video.
Have you considered making a discussion post that summarized and linked to some of your older videos? I think someone recommended a few from your channel in a discussion here once and it got up votes. The Atheistkult one might be edgy but I think it would actually go down well and would be very relevant to the LW crowd.
Then I will add it. It’s people like you who remind me of the saying that “Courtesy is the grease for the gears of society.”
EDIT: Sexy Robot GLaDOS suggests that people submit unoriginal works like I did. Sorry Richard, I haven’t been on here in a while. If that’s what you thought, then my reply was overly harsh and I apologize for being so rude.
Discussion vs. Main customs have been settled since the beginning.
That’s very not true. I assume you mean “Since Discussion was added to the site”, since there was no Discussion section on Less Wrong for quite some time. Before Discussion was around, it was considered acceptable to post relevant links as articles, and Eliezer even said so explicitly.
After Discussion was introduced, it took some time to settle whether link posts still belonged on Main. Since Discussion was generally conceived as a place for posts that are not substantial enough to be Main posts, and single-link posts were already considered acceptable for Main, it was not immediately obvious that such posts belong in Discussion.
At the least, it’s absurd to think that any norms/customs regarding X have been settled since the beginning of X—it always takes some time.
I didn’t mean to imply just link posts where common at the start or anything like that. Considering your feedback I think the norms not being quite settled at first could well just be my projection.
I have read a lot of LessWrong articles, but to be honest I had a hard time deciding where to put my “hey you! why don’t you learn game theory?” post. I only settled on main after I asked a few LWers on the IRC channel about where to put it. Maybe I should have said “it can be hard to figure out the norms”.
Which reminds me… @Aurini: Consider adding [Link]: or [link] or something like that before the title.
I would say add [Video]: [Link] would perpetuate the misunderstanding that there may be no immediate content, [Video] correctly warns people who (for whatever reason) can’t easily view arguments in video format.
“Since the beginning”? I’ve been here longer than you, pal; I just don’t get off on the politics, and post rarely.
Don’t try and pull some contemporary social norm as Status; if I fucked up with my lack of description, tell me! I admitted my error, and corrected it; do you have a real complaint, or are you just trying to prove that your IQ is 2 inches longer than mine?
This is a 20 minute video which I put quite a bit of effor into; I intended to embed it, but was not able to.
If it was a 20 minute video about bayesian theory, would you also have made the above comment?
This is rationalist related; this is a formal presentation; that is why I posted it.
Yes. I’m not going to watch a 20 minute video about anything unless it is highly regarded or I think there are compelling reasons for me to watch it, since I can read the transcript of a 20 minute video in 1-2 minutes and most people are incompetent at leveraging the strengths of video to make watching a video more worthwhile than reading text.
Then send GLaDOS $5 and have her transcript it.
Have you done transcription? it’s a pain in the ass. Put this video on while you make breakfast, if you want, or don’t watch or read it at all. I put it here because I thought you’d find it interesting; if listening to a video while you cook food is too much for you, please don’t trouble yourself for my sake.
Downvoted for using a hostile tone to reply to honest and reasonable feedback.
Downvoted for calling a hostile response to a hostile response hostile.
Being blunt is not the same thing as being hostile, especially not if it’s in response to a question.
You asked whether a description would be enough to make the post valuable to people on this site. katydee thought that it would not make it reasonable for him, and explained why. You are of course under no obligation to cater to his wishes in particular if you deem them unreasonable, just like he is under no obligation to check out your video if he doesn’t consider it a worthwhile use of his time. But although he could have been a little less blunt, he never attacked you directly and merely explained his own feelings on the subject.
So my video is a waste of his time because it lacks description (which I added when somebody who was polite pointed out my error), but it is worth three comments decrying it, without an actual viewing?
Please; I was not the asshole in that situation.
Don’t take those kids of statements on LessWrong personally. Discourse on LessWrong can be blunt, but people generally are honest and don’t play that many games. I find the trade off worth it.
GLaDOS, I just outed myself as an evil racist; LW’s hate is a warm glow. :)
Check out my comment history I’m an evil “racist” too. I don’t get down voted though.
Oh I’m sure the downvotes for the main articles are almost entirely from newbs to the topic who are shocked SHOCKED to see this argument. And people who are thinking “this is true but I can’t have this on LW main it looks bad to non-LWers!”. And now that its in negative numbers people will dog pile on it (happens to most)… and that isn’t so much your fault (though I guarantee you you would have had a better response in discussion).
But in some of the later comments about the meta level you really did responded badly. You don’t seem to be currently calibrated to what kind of style LW posters want. Don’t worry it gets back to you after a while. (^_^)
You seem to believe that aurini wants to have their comments upvoted, and is simply failing to implement that desire successfully. Have I correctly understood you?
If so, I’m curious as to what makes you conclude that. It seems unlikely to me.
Past behaviour is a excellent predictor of future behaviour. He used to be a good faith participant (check out his early comment history) on LessWrong and has obviously read at least some of the sequences and occasionally cite them outside of LW.
LessWronger posting norms and style are really different from some flame heavy parts of the internet. It can be hard to adjust.
Mm. Fair enough… thanks for the explanation.
He has apologized, I think I may have been right after all.
(nods) The comment you link to decreases my confidence that aurini was intentionally setting out to violate community norms (though not below 50%).
GLaDOS, you are the first girl-computer to give me a bRoner.
The mind truly is the sexy organ, even for a playa like myself.
I may have to trust you to post the videos full of Truth in the future; I have three more posts, tops, before I burn out of karma. You must post them, while decrying me as a monster! That is how the fates say it must be.
This sort of comment reinforces negative stereotypes pretty badly. There’s a perception that people who self-identify as “race realists” are often simply smart versions of “bros” and have generally sexist attitudes. How much of that is due to halo effects and tribal allegiance issues isn’t clear. But this sort of comment really doesn’t help matters.
Capitalizing truth is never a good sign. If you feel a need to do it, it may be a good moment to step back from the keyboard and think carefully about what you believe, why you believe it, and how to most effectively communicate those reasons to people who may not agree.
Remind me, JoshuaZ—who is the Pretntious Writer who captilizes Truth and Many Other Words, and has subcribers… and who is the pretentious prick who comments upon standards of writing behaviour?
You can burn in hell; GLaDOS is a bloody lady, and sexy as the day is long. She has class and internet bearing—something you clearly lack. I also suspect that you do not own a motorcycle. If you did, you’d be giving me an internet high-five, bro, and we’d be rocking out on skype, like True Men. Instead you argue with me about something that has no bearing to the topic at hand.
I detect someone who seeks reputation points.
This is cool because this started out as my RP account, but if I was posting this under my real name or different nick comments like that would be creepy.
Note not everyone may get the reference so I suggest you stop. (~_^)
I feel I was no more hostile than—to use your argument—someone judging a competent black doctor as incompetent thanks to their priors about affirmative action.
That’s rassist!
Also, far less rational than you ought to pride yourself on being; but I didn’t expect rationality from LessWrong, so I’m not disappointed!
That’s not how you reacted during our unfortunate altercation on gender relations ethics!
And who are you again?
Um, at the risk of re-igniting passions… you replied to a link I posted, which started a rather heated argument that attracted other commenters. (Unless you remember and your question was meant as an insult.)
A hostile response to a hostile response is hostile.
My point is simply that, were you to provide an expanded description that might provide compelling reasons to watch your video, I would be more inclined to look into it—but a link submitted without context is extremely unlikely to get my attention.
GLaDOS said the same, but politely. I expanded the description.
You could have been nicer.
Hey I can do a quick cleaned up transcript and if you’d like you can put it in the OP. (^_^)
Edit: Metatroll beat me to it! Give him karma.
People here really hate just link posts and this is mostly true of any subject. This may be because they can’t quickly skim them to make a rapid estimate of the value of information. But I think the really big thing is that most people just lazily assume a link is to non-original work.
Note that when people like gwern make badass research intensive posts they never just post a link to their website, they usually replicate the entire article on LW or at least quote extensively. Even in Discussion single link posts aren’t much liked.
I don’t really like this norm honestly, but it is an established one.
I appreciate the clarification. :) My bad—I’m surprised to hear that that is a problem, but that is life, eh?
I rewrote the description. What do you think? I don’t want you to go to all the effort of doing a transcript; I suspect it might take longer than the video itself (with all the false starts, etc). But I will not say no to it, either. Do you think it’s still necessary?
Much better, it is a good summary. Perhaps drop the Obama reference (keep the discussion on race line). For some strange reason any name-drop of an American politician in a post seems to cost it 5 or 10 karma instantly (politics is the mindkiller has become a mindkiller heh (^_^) )
Oh its ok, its not really necessary. A paragraph explaining what the key argument is and perhaps links to related posts work just fine. I was just offering to PM you a raw transcript of what your said, that I would type do as I watched. BTW So far I’m linking your video.
Have you considered making a discussion post that summarized and linked to some of your older videos? I think someone recommended a few from your channel in a discussion here once and it got up votes. The Atheistkult one might be edgy but I think it would actually go down well and would be very relevant to the LW crowd.
Sexy GLaDOS, I’ve done transcription myself, and I know that it’s no fun—but a few comments suggest that a transcript would be desired.
If it’s easy for you—if you think the video deserves it—then it might be much appreciated.
http://pastebin.com/J1RMZA3G
Greatly appreciated, friend.
Darn you beat me to it. Good work!
Ok, how do you guys do that?
This information should be in the original posting, together with a summary of what the video says. As it stands, it’s just a YouTube link.
...
Then I will add it. It’s people like you who remind me of the saying that “Courtesy is the grease for the gears of society.”
EDIT: Sexy Robot GLaDOS suggests that people submit unoriginal works like I did. Sorry Richard, I haven’t been on here in a while. If that’s what you thought, then my reply was overly harsh and I apologize for being so rude.
Yeah the whole Discussion vs. Main norms hadn’t settled down until relatively recently.
Discussion vs. Main customs have been settled since the beginning. It takes a lot to make a mere link post suitable for Main; it has been very rare.
That’s very not true. I assume you mean “Since Discussion was added to the site”, since there was no Discussion section on Less Wrong for quite some time. Before Discussion was around, it was considered acceptable to post relevant links as articles, and Eliezer even said so explicitly.
After Discussion was introduced, it took some time to settle whether link posts still belonged on Main. Since Discussion was generally conceived as a place for posts that are not substantial enough to be Main posts, and single-link posts were already considered acceptable for Main, it was not immediately obvious that such posts belong in Discussion.
At the least, it’s absurd to think that any norms/customs regarding X have been settled since the beginning of X—it always takes some time.
I didn’t mean to imply just link posts where common at the start or anything like that. Considering your feedback I think the norms not being quite settled at first could well just be my projection.
I have read a lot of LessWrong articles, but to be honest I had a hard time deciding where to put my “hey you! why don’t you learn game theory?” post. I only settled on main after I asked a few LWers on the IRC channel about where to put it. Maybe I should have said “it can be hard to figure out the norms”.
Which reminds me… @Aurini: Consider adding [Link]: or [link] or something like that before the title.
I would say add [Video]: [Link] would perpetuate the misunderstanding that there may be no immediate content, [Video] correctly warns people who (for whatever reason) can’t easily view arguments in video format.
Good idea.
“Since the beginning”? I’ve been here longer than you, pal; I just don’t get off on the politics, and post rarely.
Don’t try and pull some contemporary social norm as Status; if I fucked up with my lack of description, tell me! I admitted my error, and corrected it; do you have a real complaint, or are you just trying to prove that your IQ is 2 inches longer than mine?