Documents like these seem among the most important ones to get right.
If this is among the first essays a new user is going to see, then remember that they might have little buy-in to the site’s philosophy, and furthermore don’t know any of the jargon. Furthermore, not all users will be native English speakers.
So my recommendations and feedback come from this perspective.
Regarding the writing:
Be more concise. Most LW essays are way way way too long, and an essay as important as a site introduction should strive to be exemplary in regards like this. It should value its readers’ time more than the median essay on this site does. (To be clear, this comment of mine does not satisfy this standard either.)
Use simpler language. XKCD made the Simple Writer at one time, which IIRC only uses the 1000 most common English words. That’s overkill, but aim for that end of the spectrum, rather than the jargon end.
Aim for a tone that’s enjoyable to read, rather than sounding dry or technical. Reconsider the title for the same reason; it sounds like a manual.
To make the essay more enjoyable to read, consider writing it with personality and character and your quirks as writers and individuals, and signing it with “By the LW Moderation team: X, Y, Z” or some such.
Regarding the content:
I have the overall impression that this document reads like “Here’s how you can audition for a spot in our prestigious club”. But new users assess the site at the same time as the site assesses them. So a better goal for such a document is, in my opinion, to be more invitational. More like courtship, or advertisement. A more reciprocal relationship. “Here’s what’s cool and unique about this site. If you share these goals or values, then here are some tips so we’ll better get along with each other.”
Also, the initial section makes it seem like LW’s rationality discourse is unique, when it’s merely rare. How about referencing some other communities which also do this well, communities which the new user might already be familiar with, so they know what to expect? E.g. other Internet communities which aim more in the direction of collaborative and truth-seeking discourse like reddit’s ELI5 or Change My View; adjacent communities like Astral Codex Ten; discourse in technical communities like engineers or academics; etc. Also stress that all this stuff is merely aspirational: These standards of discourse are just goals we strive towards, and almost everyone falls short sometimes.
Re: the section “How to get started”: There must be some way for new users to actively participate that does not require hours or days of prep work.
Re: the section “How to ensure your first post or comment is approved”: This currently starts “in medias res”, without properly explaining the context of content moderation or why new users would be subject to extra scrutiny. I would begin with something like a brief reference to the concepts from Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism: LW is aiming for a certain standard of discourse, and standards degrade over time unless they’re intentionally maintained. So the site requires moderation. And just like a new user might be unfamiliar with LW, so LW is unfamiliar about the new user and whether they’re here to participate or to troll or spam (potentially even with AI assistance). Hence the extra scrutiny. “We’re genuinely sorry that we have to put new users through hoops and wish it wasn’t necessary (moderation takes time and effort which we would rather put somewhere else).” Here’s how to get through that initial period of getting to know each other in the quickest way possible.
Missing stuff:
Explain the karma system, and what it means for a post to have lots or little karma. Explain agreement karma. Explain that votes by long-time users have more karma power. Explain that highly upvoted posts can still be controversial; I wish we had some <controversial> flag for posts that have tons of upvotes and downvotes. Explain the meaning of downvotes, and how (not) to act when one of your posts or comments has received lots of downvotes.
Agreed for the most part. However, all of the things you mention are difficult to get right. It would take a good deal of the team’s time to improve the writing quality I presume. If so, the question becomes one of priorities. Is it worth spending that time or using that time on something else? My impression is that it’s probably worth spending a week or so on it and then iterating periodically for a few months afterwards in response to feedback.
Be more concise
I think you can actually be both concise and lengthy. Have a “here’s the quick version” section and then a “if you want more detail, here’s the details” part that follows. Or maybe break it into two separate posts.
Thanks for pointing me to this. I never saw it before and think it’s so cool!
Here’s how you can audition for a spot in our prestigious club
I don’t get that impression.
Re: the section “How to get started”: There must be some way for new users to actively participate that does not require hours or days of prep work.
I don’t agree with that. Large requirements will definitely filter more people out, but it’s not clear that that’s a bad thing. Personally my sense is that it’s a good thing on balance.
Explain the karma system
This doesn’t seem important enough to spend time on in this post. It seems more appropriate to have those questions addressed in the FAQs and perhaps have the post mention the FAQs as something to refer to.
Documents like these seem among the most important ones to get right.
If this is among the first essays a new user is going to see, then remember that they might have little buy-in to the site’s philosophy, and furthermore don’t know any of the jargon. Furthermore, not all users will be native English speakers.
So my recommendations and feedback come from this perspective.
Regarding the writing:
Be more concise. Most LW essays are way way way too long, and an essay as important as a site introduction should strive to be exemplary in regards like this. It should value its readers’ time more than the median essay on this site does. (To be clear, this comment of mine does not satisfy this standard either.)
Use simpler language. XKCD made the Simple Writer at one time, which IIRC only uses the 1000 most common English words. That’s overkill, but aim for that end of the spectrum, rather than the jargon end.
Aim for a tone that’s enjoyable to read, rather than sounding dry or technical. Reconsider the title for the same reason; it sounds like a manual.
To make the essay more enjoyable to read, consider writing it with personality and character and your quirks as writers and individuals, and signing it with “By the LW Moderation team: X, Y, Z” or some such.
Regarding the content:
I have the overall impression that this document reads like “Here’s how you can audition for a spot in our prestigious club”. But new users assess the site at the same time as the site assesses them. So a better goal for such a document is, in my opinion, to be more invitational. More like courtship, or advertisement. A more reciprocal relationship. “Here’s what’s cool and unique about this site. If you share these goals or values, then here are some tips so we’ll better get along with each other.”
Also, the initial section makes it seem like LW’s rationality discourse is unique, when it’s merely rare. How about referencing some other communities which also do this well, communities which the new user might already be familiar with, so they know what to expect? E.g. other Internet communities which aim more in the direction of collaborative and truth-seeking discourse like reddit’s ELI5 or Change My View; adjacent communities like Astral Codex Ten; discourse in technical communities like engineers or academics; etc. Also stress that all this stuff is merely aspirational: These standards of discourse are just goals we strive towards, and almost everyone falls short sometimes.
Re: the section “How to get started”: There must be some way for new users to actively participate that does not require hours or days of prep work.
Re: the section “How to ensure your first post or comment is approved”: This currently starts “in medias res”, without properly explaining the context of content moderation or why new users would be subject to extra scrutiny. I would begin with something like a brief reference to the concepts from Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism: LW is aiming for a certain standard of discourse, and standards degrade over time unless they’re intentionally maintained. So the site requires moderation. And just like a new user might be unfamiliar with LW, so LW is unfamiliar about the new user and whether they’re here to participate or to troll or spam (potentially even with AI assistance). Hence the extra scrutiny. “We’re genuinely sorry that we have to put new users through hoops and wish it wasn’t necessary (moderation takes time and effort which we would rather put somewhere else).” Here’s how to get through that initial period of getting to know each other in the quickest way possible.
Missing stuff:
Explain the karma system, and what it means for a post to have lots or little karma. Explain agreement karma. Explain that votes by long-time users have more karma power. Explain that highly upvoted posts can still be controversial; I wish we had some <controversial> flag for posts that have tons of upvotes and downvotes. Explain the meaning of downvotes, and how (not) to act when one of your posts or comments has received lots of downvotes.
Agreed for the most part. However, all of the things you mention are difficult to get right. It would take a good deal of the team’s time to improve the writing quality I presume. If so, the question becomes one of priorities. Is it worth spending that time or using that time on something else? My impression is that it’s probably worth spending a week or so on it and then iterating periodically for a few months afterwards in response to feedback.
I think you can actually be both concise and lengthy. Have a “here’s the quick version” section and then a “if you want more detail, here’s the details” part that follows. Or maybe break it into two separate posts.
Thanks for pointing me to this. I never saw it before and think it’s so cool!
I don’t get that impression.
I don’t agree with that. Large requirements will definitely filter more people out, but it’s not clear that that’s a bad thing. Personally my sense is that it’s a good thing on balance.
This doesn’t seem important enough to spend time on in this post. It seems more appropriate to have those questions addressed in the FAQs and perhaps have the post mention the FAQs as something to refer to.