No objection to short simple posts, but if you find that you simply don't have enough material / material-generating speed to make 30 genuinely interesting posts in 30 days then I think it's better to back out of that commitment and say "lesson learned" (but, I suggest, still write them even if you don't always post them) than to post stuff that pleases neither you nor the LW readership.

I don't think anything you've posted so far is close to being in the not-worth-posting category, and the above is not coded criticism either of that material or of your project.

I just wanted to comment that I'm a huge fan of this series, so please don't stop just because the articles are getting shorter. I mean, honestly, short posts are easier to get through anyway.

Nearterm, I think posts like this are fine. They may not feel momentous enough to promote to Featured but

a) from my understanding of your goals it's still better to do them than not for keeping-the-momentum-going reasons

b) I think they are useful things to have in the zeitgeist and refer to. (Not sure how this fits into your goals, but this is the sort of thing I might have aggregated into something like The Real Hufflepuff Sequence Was The Posts We Made Along the Way, and this may eventually end up in a similar compilation)

Longterm, I think the site will/should end up organized in a way that short posts like this have their place without feeling too small. (This'd have made a fine Facebook post. My own hope [not speaking for the entire development team] is that once we have reliably-personal-blogs on LessWrong, and the ability to subscribe to the blogs of people we like, Rationalist Facebook can just move over to The Part Of LessWrong That Is Kinda Facebook Like)

And meanwhile, of course, I agree very much with the post and it still seems like something the community needs more of.

This is a good post about how to become a more reliable person. I often find it incredibly frustrating when people flake on me, and I really know very few people who don't consistently flake on plans.

I think this is good advice for people who want to become more reliable. However, I often suspect that the people who consistently flake don't want to be more reliable. My suspicion is that people wish to signal behavior by *saying* they're going to do something without actually doing it. Much like a politician making campaign promises, there are social rewards for indicating interest in activities, and you don't necessarily lose those all of those rewards by failing to show up. I often feel like I'm just being told what I want to hear. So really, if we are to become more reliable, we may need to become more honest.