post by [deleted] · · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by fortyeridania · 2012-06-01T23:44:57.240Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Downvoted. I do not want to see advertisements on LW, especially not in the guise of posts, and especially not in the main section.

Replies from: Alexei, None, wedrifid, John_Maxwell_IV
comment by Alexei · 2012-06-02T00:10:35.100Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

On the other hand, this is a really good offer, so I would rather see it here, then not see it at all. While in the future I might change my mind, for now I'll welcome these kinds of posts.

Replies from: Alicorn, army1987
comment by Alicorn · 2012-06-02T00:31:56.661Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Is it really that good? Sure, if you want to sell them a customer and have one to hand over, that's a thousand bucks. But you have to have a customer to sell them, and the customer has to be willing to be sold, and your contact with that customer-company has to be one who's not on LW emself already to take advantage of this directly, and meanwhile many people who don't qualify will encounter this timewasting post. I think this is getting past your filters because outright buying customers is not common except under the terminology "referral bonus" (when existing customers sell other customers to the company - and even that is less shady, because the selling customer has an idea of the quality of the service!).

If a dozen companies offered us comparable amounts in exchange for our word-of-mouth advertising services to their target audience on a monthly basis, and the only lip service they paid to Less Wrong's purpose was explicitly suggesting that Singinst might be our charity of choice, and that we were Less Wrong readers ("you've read the Sequences! You have $INGROUP_TRAITS!") and that Singinst has hired them for something ("Costco: grocer of choice for large households of Singularitarians, such as those at the celebrated Minicamps!"), that would be more blatantly not-on-topic after a while. This is just numerically less overwhelming. You sort of acknowledge this ("for now") but while anything could get wearing if it were posted too much, this isn't like posts about decision theory or posts about signaling or something. This is an ad.

Replies from: None, Alexei, Will_Newsome
comment by [deleted] · 2012-06-02T02:53:32.107Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

"Costco: grocer of choice for large households of Singularitarians, such as those at the celebrated Minicamps!"

Haha, I didn't think of that. It's a fair point.

It would be grating if a dozen companies made posts like this every month, but that isn't the case. I'm trying to make it easy to donate, in a community where akrasia is an obvious problem and many of us are not old enough to have made much money yet. Perhaps you're disgusted by it, but do you really think it's bad on net?

Replies from: CuSithBell, Alicorn
comment by CuSithBell · 2012-06-04T00:19:49.968Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

It would be grating if a dozen companies made posts like this every month, but that isn't the case.

I'm a little wary of this. You think it would be bad if other people acted in a way similar to you in sufficient number? What determines who "gets" to reap the benefits of being the exception?

comment by Alicorn · 2012-06-02T19:10:02.339Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yes. Yes, I do think it is bad, and I wish it would not be here. I don't happen to wish it authoritatively enough to click "ban", but I do wish it enough to say so.

I would not have complained about an Open Thread comment that straightforwardly detailed the offer without being so salesy.

Replies from: None
comment by [deleted] · 2012-06-02T20:58:35.079Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

So, to be clear: you are bothered by salesiness, not the offer itself? So much so that you considered banning me from Less Wrong? I don't think you're being a consequentialist right now.

I'd like to discuss this with you through email, if you care enough to make the time.

Replies from: wedrifid, Alicorn
comment by wedrifid · 2012-06-03T00:22:03.175Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't think you're being a consequentialist right now.

That seems likely. Alicorn is a professed deontologist.

comment by Alicorn · 2012-06-02T21:00:41.411Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I am bothered by the salesiness and the location as a toplevel post. If it had been a non-salesy Open Thread comment it would have been sufficiently unobtrusive, and sufficiently not-annoying, that I would have let it pass without remark.

I cannot ban people, I can only hide posts.

I can't say I have any reason to be interested in talking to you outside this format.

Replies from: wedrifid
comment by wedrifid · 2012-06-03T22:18:20.407Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I can't say I have any reason to be interested in talking to you outside this format.

You are missing out! He's quite good looking, rather charming and generally fun to have around.

Replies from: Alicorn
comment by Alicorn · 2012-06-03T22:23:55.767Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Sure, but his name's Michael, and I know too many of those.

Replies from: wedrifid
comment by wedrifid · 2012-06-03T22:36:44.021Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Good point. Too many people with the same name gets confusing. (I have two friends called "Christine". Recently they both went and got married... to brothers. Now facebook has all sorts of trouble working out who I'm referring to!)

comment by Alexei · 2012-06-02T04:54:23.500Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

What if posters who wanted to post ads like this had to pay to SI/LW/CFAR? This way we would be getting more value out of this. Or may be we should have a separate section (my "shit lesswrongers say" detector just went off) for this kind of stuff?

comment by Will_Newsome · 2012-06-02T19:12:48.534Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm just curious, have you been learning programming? Gratz if so.

Replies from: Alicorn
comment by Alicorn · 2012-06-02T19:31:10.240Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I've started to learn programming a few times but wouldn't say I know any to speak of. The $VARIABLE convention is pretty easy to pick up when one hangs around programmers.

comment by A1987dM (army1987) · 2012-06-02T17:55:27.682Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I've heard that more people read Discussion than Main, so...

comment by [deleted] · 2012-06-01T23:52:45.847Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I did expect some readers to have this reaction, but thought more people would appreciate the opportunity to donate to causes that many of us support - especially considering the warm reception the Quantified Health Prize received.

Thanks for the feedback.

ETA: I'll change the name, to make the content more obvious.

comment by wedrifid · 2012-06-02T00:57:27.052Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Downvoted. I do not want to see advertisements on LW, especially not in the guise of posts, and especially not in the main section.

Unfortunately that is where they seem to end up (main, promoted). Even when the negative reception actually makes the advertiser (or donor) look terrible.

comment by John_Maxwell (John_Maxwell_IV) · 2012-06-02T02:03:34.715Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'd prefer to evaluate whether the post should be in Main based on the quality of the offer being made in the advertisement, not based on the fact that it's an advertisement.

I think the reason people are averse to advertisements is because of social versus economic norms. A traditional post offers an exchange involving time, thought, insights, prestige, etc. when construed with economic norms terminology. An advertisement offers an exchange involving money, goods, services, etc. Right now I don't see any good reason for the first sort of offer to be given additional visibility privileges, although a good reason may exist.

comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2012-06-02T17:38:33.114Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Until I realized that the OP was a long-time poster, this struck me as probably a scam. I still wouldn't be too surprised if it were a scam. I'm saying this so the OP knows his post set off somebody's scam-detector.

Replies from: None
comment by [deleted] · 2012-06-02T18:39:19.602Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Wow, thanks for letting me know.

Replies from: JoshuaZ, Normal_Anomaly
comment by JoshuaZ · 2012-06-03T00:29:45.728Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Among self-identified groups of "smart" or good thinkers, they are sometimes overactive in their negative reactions to salsey talk. You see this also in the organized skeptical movement. That may be part of the cause of the downvoting.

comment by Normal_Anomaly · 2012-06-03T02:25:21.416Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think I have a more sensitive scam-detector than average. Specific example: I'm always afraid to download software, even after I've looked it up and Yahoo Answers or somewhere has said it's safe.

comment by Multiheaded · 2012-06-02T05:16:10.314Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

That sounds like an anime title. Lead Alpha Optimal Philanthropy Donation Drive Princess Robot Bubblegum!

comment by Will_Newsome · 2012-06-02T19:11:09.278Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for this opportunity. For people low on funds $500 can make a big difference. I think people who do this should PredictionBook beforehand to predict their success. Conditional on trying for a twelve hours I'm 50% confident I can get one sign-up. Would that be abnormally bad performance in your industry? (I'd also exhaust low hanging fruit after three to five company attempts.)

Replies from: None
comment by [deleted] · 2012-06-02T21:01:55.245Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Not a problem. If you are cold-contacting companies, one sign-up for 12 hours of work would be a very good rate. If you're contacting people you know, it's reasonable to expect that you could at least set a few meetings with 12 hours of work.

Be sure to email me if you have any more questions.

comment by Will_Newsome · 2012-06-02T19:04:40.648Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

charity of your choice

Highlighting this.

comment by Vladimir_Nesov · 2012-06-02T04:35:13.596Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

"The Lead Alpha Optimal Philanthropy Donation Drive"

I think it would look much better without the "The Lead Alpha" prefix.

comment by Grognor · 2012-06-01T23:01:58.619Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

We're currently managing the Singularity Institute's AdWords account.

http://singinst.org/ and related sites don't have ads, so huh?

Replies from: None, gjm, wedrifid
comment by [deleted] · 2012-06-01T23:10:30.218Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Not sure why you believe that. Louie Helm has been managing the account for a long time, and we show up on Spyfu for Less Wrong and SI's homepage.

ETA: Is it possible that you're confusing AdWords with AdSense? Perhaps I should have made the difference clearer. AdWords is for advertising on Google search results, not placing banner ads on your site.

comment by gjm · 2012-06-01T23:12:25.389Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think you're mixing up AdWords (short textual advertisements on Google search result pages) with AdSense (advertisements on other sites, with Google mediating between advertisers and people with webpages).

[EDITED to add, for clarity: Ads on the SI's sites would be AdSense ads (the SI offers advertising space and Google pays them). michaelcurzi is talking about ads in Google's search results (Google offers advertising space and the SI pays). The two are almost exactly opposite.]

comment by wedrifid · 2012-06-01T23:06:34.654Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

http://singinst.org/ and related sites don't have ads, so huh?

AdWords means adds for them, not adds on them.