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

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by RobertLumley · 2012-05-24T02:22:48.465Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

You may find it useful to post an abstract or summary to let people what the general points are you're going to make. I'm unlikely to read (and didn't) something this long without having some idea of what it's about.

Edit: Especially when it's sitting at zero votes and zero comments, I am unlikely to read it.

Replies from: jacob_cannell
comment by jacob_cannell · 2012-05-24T03:02:50.703Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Ok, thanks for letting me know your thought process, I assume you downvoted as a result. It does seem silly in retrospect to post something that long and without a good abstract. I probably could have summarized the interesting bits into something much shorter.

Replies from: RobertLumley
comment by RobertLumley · 2012-05-24T03:04:56.805Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I did not downvote, since I didn't read it. It could be a wonderful article, for all I know.

comment by A4FB53AC · 2012-05-24T03:00:33.430Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think you're making too many separate points (how to resurrect past people using all the information you can, simulation argument, some religious undertone) and the text is pretty long, many will not read it to the end. Also even if someone agrees with some part of it, it's likely they'll disagree with another (which often results in downvoting the whole post in my experience). I think you'd be better off rewriting this as several different posts.

Replies from: jacob_cannell
comment by jacob_cannell · 2012-05-24T03:23:18.091Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Good points. Agreed.

I'm going to tighten it into one or more smaller, tighter and hopefully more interesting discussion worthy bits.