Just as a clarification: None of the three articles you reviewed are curated articles, in the sense that they are not displayed as part of the curated section of the site, and that they have not been sent out to everyone who is subscribed to curated articles.
They are all still reasonably popular posts, so critiquing them still seems good. I am generally happy to see critiques like this, and think you broadly make some decent points (though I have to read what you said in more detail before I can make a better call).
Presumably you found those articles via the “From the Archives” section of the site (which is part of the “Recommended” section, which shows you posts randomly sampled from LessWrong history, proportional to a simple function of their karma (it’s karma raised to some power)). We recently changed the UI around the recommendation section which makes it less obvious where the “From the archives” section ends and the list of curated posts begins, which is something I’ve been meaning to fix, so maybe that confused you? Or maybe you were just using “curated” in some broader sense, though in that case it still seemed good to clarify for other readers who might be confused.
General inquiry as to level of appetite for this type of criticism, and whether doing such for recent posts would be a positive or negative for those writing.
(Not as a ‘should this have been written?’ but more as a ‘should I/others consider writing more similar posts?’
Sorry for the confusion then! Our current UI sure seems like it would make that confusion likely, so I think of this as mostly my responsibility. I will think about how to preserve the simplicity of the section while also making it clearer that there are two types of posts in there (from the archives and curated).
Thanks for doing this!
Just as a clarification: None of the three articles you reviewed are curated articles, in the sense that they are not displayed as part of the curated section of the site, and that they have not been sent out to everyone who is subscribed to curated articles.
They are all still reasonably popular posts, so critiquing them still seems good. I am generally happy to see critiques like this, and think you broadly make some decent points (though I have to read what you said in more detail before I can make a better call).
Presumably you found those articles via the “From the Archives” section of the site (which is part of the “Recommended” section, which shows you posts randomly sampled from LessWrong history, proportional to a simple function of their karma (it’s karma raised to some power)). We recently changed the UI around the recommendation section which makes it less obvious where the “From the archives” section ends and the list of curated posts begins, which is something I’ve been meaning to fix, so maybe that confused you? Or maybe you were just using “curated” in some broader sense, though in that case it still seemed good to clarify for other readers who might be confused.
General inquiry as to level of appetite for this type of criticism, and whether doing such for recent posts would be a positive or negative for those writing.
(Not as a ‘should this have been written?’ but more as a ‘should I/others consider writing more similar posts?’
On the current margin I’d be interested in more of this.
Oh I was just confused. Thanks for the clarification. SMASH THIS POT.
Sorry for the confusion then! Our current UI sure seems like it would make that confusion likely, so I think of this as mostly my responsibility. I will think about how to preserve the simplicity of the section while also making it clearer that there are two types of posts in there (from the archives and curated).