This is our 101st post in the 50 days since we opened November 20. So it is time to take stock and ask for feedback. We’ve had 76,436 page views, 33,410 visits, and 1392 comments. Our visitors come from these time zones: Eastern 35%, Pacific 19%, Central 14%, Mountain 7%, Greenwich 5%, Berlin 5%, and New Caledonia (near Australia) 5%.
For that reason plenty of superstars bring Replicas LV purses, as an example Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Simpson and the like sometimes one tend not to genuinely notice the superstar though the Gucci these folks wear the ensemble.?
I can't really tell if you're being sarcastic or not, Michael. If so, (or for the benefit of Usenet-haters) the main reason Usenet was so characterized by endless flaming and trolling was that the moderation was so primitive, and the communities so open. Blogs are much more managed and insular, so non-linearity wouldn't lead to the eternal September.
1) I am preparing other posts, albeit in desultory manner. Furthest along is one on framing and filling.2) There is nothing wrong with recycling previous posts, together with comments. By that I mean every now and then revisiting a post by bringing it out of the archive and putting it up front, with a notation to the effect that is what you are doing, and why. Reasons could range from you like the issue and would like to give it a second chance, to this issue aroused a lot of discussion last time and now that we have had a chance to let the issue sit in the cask and mature, it might be worth tasting again.
Robin, it would indeed be ideal to be able to maintain activity on old post conversations, but, alas, blogs simply don't work that way. The best blog I've ever seen in that regard is Alas, a Blog,
and I attribute its success in that regard to its recent comments plugin, which groups by post and displays a large number of comments. This allows you to gauge conversational velocity of recent comments per post, which really helps things, and allows people reading the from page to very quickly see if there's any new activity on posts they've been participating in. Having a week's worth of comments is important, so that people who only check the site every few days won't miss comments they would otherwise respond to.
Alas, even that isn't enough to make conversations last indefinitely. The problem is that the subject matter being explored in conversation is very non-linear, but the format of blog comments are completely linear. People coming into the conversation get bogged down by the linearity. When threads get too long and too noisy, new participants rarely enter, and back and forth between a few participants is rarely desirable after a point.
When posters elevate a topic brought up in a comments thread to a new post, that issue is mitigated somewhat. It gives new issues, and objections, more attention, and allows for a fresh context to be constructed. This is something you might consider doing more frequently, if you want to encourage that.
I've long thought that some form of non-linear discussion forum would be a big improvement. Something wiki-like, but that fixes wiki weaknesses. A small step in that direction is subthreaded comments (when done well). But the commenting volume here isn't high enough to warrant (or benefit from) that.
Unlike Jewish atheist I haven't the time or inclination to read back through all the posts to "go figure." So as intellectual lightweight, I'd sure like a "bias lite" post, which explains what is bias as relates to this blog, and what the blog is aiming at specifically (or not so specifically.) The bits that have really piqued my interest are things that relate to the question of how we know what we know, what probabilities we assign to our fundamental beliefs, and at what cost we alter, tinker or fail to do so. I've had enough logic and stats training to be familiar with the term "bayesian" but not enough to spell it correctly at the first go, or to have a clue what that is... I can look it up, I know.
This preamble is just to be sure you understand that the blog mostly is neither about nor for me, BUT, I often find bits that grab my imagination, and set my head to spin. Ain't the i-net grand! I can read about enlightenment or bias or philosophy, have 1/2 a clue, and a wonderful time. Thanks.
I'm glad you don't plan to close and delete comments after a while like many journals, and I agree that all good conversations (and too many bad ones) are eternal. Unfortunately, the problem with blogs is that comments and followup are second-class. The flow tends to pass from threads usually after a fairly short time and one can't usually expect a comment in a two week old thread to be read by anyone other than the site maintainers (original authors? -- whoever would get notices of comments being posted in a thread). I suppose that means I should put my hat in to become a contributor so that I can pick up old conversations with an original post when necessary.
Echoing the other comments, this is a really great blog. I have really enjoyed reading the posts (from everyone) and occasionally commenting. What I think is most impresssive is the courteous quality of the debate, people really do read the other posters comments and respond properly.
I guess my time zone (middle east) was so infrequent it was not worth mentioning.
(1) Every now and again, how about giving us a quick explanation of why Bayesianism is the focus so much.
(2) Get rid of that ugly icon. The "BS" in the slash-circle thing that appears in webbrowsers next to the url. It would be better to have nothing rather than that---especially since you went the classy route with your banner.
That certainly seems to be why a lot of people were excited to promote the site, but I've been just as impressed and inspired by the posts from other contributors (most of whom I'd never read before), as well as much of the commentariat. It would be a great loss if Robin scaled back to no more posts than the typical contributor, but I don't think the blog would lose much momentum if he posted less often but still regularly. I find I can't properly keep up with the site, as it inspires some deep thinking and comment streams. I've often started thinking about commentary that I never get around to writing before the conversation expires.
When I first landed here I didn't know and didn't understand much. I then decided to read every post from the very beginning in chronological order and that helped my comprehension quite a bit. Also Yudkowsky's introductory articles on his webpage (beautifully written) helped understanding the jargon and the goals. Since sometimes the language here is shocking it would be helpful to have these self-help hints more publicised, but it's just a thought.
For that reason plenty of superstars bring Replicas LV purses, as an example Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Simpson and the like sometimes one tend not to genuinely notice the superstar though the Gucci these folks wear the ensemble.?
I can't really tell if you're being sarcastic or not, Michael. If so, (or for the benefit of Usenet-haters) the main reason Usenet was so characterized by endless flaming and trolling was that the moderation was so primitive, and the communities so open. Blogs are much more managed and insular, so non-linearity wouldn't lead to the eternal September.
"I've long thought that some form of non-linear discussion forum would be a big improvement. "
You mean like usenet?
I mean if it wasn't bombarded by spam.
Can you tell that I really miss usenet?
Robin:
1) I am preparing other posts, albeit in desultory manner. Furthest along is one on framing and filling.2) There is nothing wrong with recycling previous posts, together with comments. By that I mean every now and then revisiting a post by bringing it out of the archive and putting it up front, with a notation to the effect that is what you are doing, and why. Reasons could range from you like the issue and would like to give it a second chance, to this issue aroused a lot of discussion last time and now that we have had a chance to let the issue sit in the cask and mature, it might be worth tasting again.
Robin, it would indeed be ideal to be able to maintain activity on old post conversations, but, alas, blogs simply don't work that way. The best blog I've ever seen in that regard is Alas, a Blog,
http://amptoons.com/blog/
and I attribute its success in that regard to its recent comments plugin, which groups by post and displays a large number of comments. This allows you to gauge conversational velocity of recent comments per post, which really helps things, and allows people reading the from page to very quickly see if there's any new activity on posts they've been participating in. Having a week's worth of comments is important, so that people who only check the site every few days won't miss comments they would otherwise respond to.
Alas, even that isn't enough to make conversations last indefinitely. The problem is that the subject matter being explored in conversation is very non-linear, but the format of blog comments are completely linear. People coming into the conversation get bogged down by the linearity. When threads get too long and too noisy, new participants rarely enter, and back and forth between a few participants is rarely desirable after a point.
When posters elevate a topic brought up in a comments thread to a new post, that issue is mitigated somewhat. It gives new issues, and objections, more attention, and allows for a fresh context to be constructed. This is something you might consider doing more frequently, if you want to encourage that.
I've long thought that some form of non-linear discussion forum would be a big improvement. Something wiki-like, but that fixes wiki weaknesses. A small step in that direction is subthreaded comments (when done well). But the commenting volume here isn't high enough to warrant (or benefit from) that.
Unlike Jewish atheist I haven't the time or inclination to read back through all the posts to "go figure." So as intellectual lightweight, I'd sure like a "bias lite" post, which explains what is bias as relates to this blog, and what the blog is aiming at specifically (or not so specifically.) The bits that have really piqued my interest are things that relate to the question of how we know what we know, what probabilities we assign to our fundamental beliefs, and at what cost we alter, tinker or fail to do so. I've had enough logic and stats training to be familiar with the term "bayesian" but not enough to spell it correctly at the first go, or to have a clue what that is... I can look it up, I know.
This preamble is just to be sure you understand that the blog mostly is neither about nor for me, BUT, I often find bits that grab my imagination, and set my head to spin. Ain't the i-net grand! I can read about enlightenment or bias or philosophy, have 1/2 a clue, and a wonderful time. Thanks.
"Also, no conversation ever expires. :)"
I'm glad you don't plan to close and delete comments after a while like many journals, and I agree that all good conversations (and too many bad ones) are eternal. Unfortunately, the problem with blogs is that comments and followup are second-class. The flow tends to pass from threads usually after a fairly short time and one can't usually expect a comment in a two week old thread to be read by anyone other than the site maintainers (original authors? -- whoever would get notices of comments being posted in a thread). I suppose that means I should put my hat in to become a contributor so that I can pick up old conversations with an original post when necessary.
I'm new to your blog, but it is simply fantastic. Bravo, and keep up the good work!
Echoing the other comments, this is a really great blog. I have really enjoyed reading the posts (from everyone) and occasionally commenting. What I think is most impresssive is the courteous quality of the debate, people really do read the other posters comments and respond properly.
I guess my time zone (middle east) was so infrequent it was not worth mentioning.
Lee, the icon is now changed.
Michael, someone should post a summary of "why Bayesian" soon, and then we can refer back to it. Also, no conversation ever expires. :)
Great blog. Suggestions:
(1) Every now and again, how about giving us a quick explanation of why Bayesianism is the focus so much.
(2) Get rid of that ugly icon. The "BS" in the slash-circle thing that appears in webbrowsers next to the url. It would be better to have nothing rather than that---especially since you went the classy route with your banner.
"Overcoming Bias = Robin Hanson"
That certainly seems to be why a lot of people were excited to promote the site, but I've been just as impressed and inspired by the posts from other contributors (most of whom I'd never read before), as well as much of the commentariat. It would be a great loss if Robin scaled back to no more posts than the typical contributor, but I don't think the blog would lose much momentum if he posted less often but still regularly. I find I can't properly keep up with the site, as it inspires some deep thinking and comment streams. I've often started thinking about commentary that I never get around to writing before the conversation expires.
Cosmo, I'd like to put the author below the post title, but I haven't figured out how to to that in TypePad yet.
Comment about the look: I don't like the position of dotted line. It's hard (for me) to know who the author of the post is.
When I first landed here I didn't know and didn't understand much. I then decided to read every post from the very beginning in chronological order and that helped my comprehension quite a bit. Also Yudkowsky's introductory articles on his webpage (beautifully written) helped understanding the jargon and the goals. Since sometimes the language here is shocking it would be helpful to have these self-help hints more publicised, but it's just a thought.
I would have never guessed this blog was so new. Keep up the great work! Fascinating stuff.