I agree that length should be considered a cost not a benefit. (My own posts seem to average around 2 minutes of read time.) When the situation calls for it, I prefer to signal effort (which I think is often useful for passing people’s initial filters and getting their attention) by doing things like being meticulous about syntax/spelling, using more formal/academic language, and not by increasing length.
I’m curious if you see a serious problem with people considering length as a benefit on LW, or confusing effort with quality (beyond using effort as an initial filter). For example, can you cite a post that is not very good but has apparently been highly upvoted because it’s long or otherwise seems high-effort?
Yes, I could cite many such posts. But I’m not entirely sure what the purpose would be, except to publicly antagonize popular contributors to Less Wrong. And the incentives for others to publicly disagree with my evaluation would obviously be great (while the incentives to agree, essentially nonexistent).
That said, your request for examples is, obviously, quite reasonable in the general sense (I would be quite hypocritical to claim otherwise). I’m willing to cite examples via private message, if you like. A question first, if I may: do you, yourself, think that examples of this sort of thing exist on Less Wrong? Or, do you think there are no such examples (or perhaps that they are very rare, at best)?
while the incentives to agree, essentially nonexistent
To me, an obvious incentive is to reach accurate consensus about the problem so that (if real) it can be solved and so upvotes can better align with quality.
I’m willing to cite examples via private message, if you like.
Sure, please do. I think if the problem is real then eventually we’ll probably have to discuss such examples in public but we can certainly start in private if you prefer.
A question first, if I may: do you, yourself, think that examples of this sort of thing exist on Less Wrong? Or, do you think there are no such examples (or perhaps that they are very rare, at best)?
No salient examples come readily to mind, but I think there could be any number of explanations for that aside from such examples being very rare or nonexistent.
ETA: I have not yet received any examples via PM, as of Aug 6.
I agree that length should be considered a cost not a benefit. (My own posts seem to average around 2 minutes of read time.) When the situation calls for it, I prefer to signal effort (which I think is often useful for passing people’s initial filters and getting their attention) by doing things like being meticulous about syntax/spelling, using more formal/academic language, and not by increasing length.
I’m curious if you see a serious problem with people considering length as a benefit on LW, or confusing effort with quality (beyond using effort as an initial filter). For example, can you cite a post that is not very good but has apparently been highly upvoted because it’s long or otherwise seems high-effort?
Yes, I could cite many such posts. But I’m not entirely sure what the purpose would be, except to publicly antagonize popular contributors to Less Wrong. And the incentives for others to publicly disagree with my evaluation would obviously be great (while the incentives to agree, essentially nonexistent).
That said, your request for examples is, obviously, quite reasonable in the general sense (I would be quite hypocritical to claim otherwise). I’m willing to cite examples via private message, if you like. A question first, if I may: do you, yourself, think that examples of this sort of thing exist on Less Wrong? Or, do you think there are no such examples (or perhaps that they are very rare, at best)?
To me, an obvious incentive is to reach accurate consensus about the problem so that (if real) it can be solved and so upvotes can better align with quality.
Sure, please do. I think if the problem is real then eventually we’ll probably have to discuss such examples in public but we can certainly start in private if you prefer.
No salient examples come readily to mind, but I think there could be any number of explanations for that aside from such examples being very rare or nonexistent.
ETA: I have not yet received any examples via PM, as of Aug 6.