Open thread, October 16 - October 22, 2017
post by root · 2017-10-16T18:53:16.852Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 24 commentsContents
24 comments
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top-level comments on this article" and ".
24 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by root · 2017-10-17T15:28:53.131Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Is LW 1.0 dead?
Replies from: Manfred, Lumifer, Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2017-10-17T17:30:36.413Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yup, looks that way. LW 2.0 is running, but seems to have gone further toward the "publish thoughts, get some comments" and away from the conversational feel we had here.
So it goes.
Replies from: gjm, fortyeridania↑ comment by gjm · 2017-10-19T10:52:33.843Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That seems like a thing that depends on how it's used more than how it works. If The People Of Less Wrong want a more conversational feel on LW2 then I expect it will happen.
(Though I think you're right that the LW2 powers-that-be want it somewhat further along the chat-to-publishing axis.)
Replies from: Habryka, Dagon↑ comment by Habryka · 2017-10-19T21:58:30.606Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
We actually have plans for a more chat-like section of the site, though we haven't yet fully converged on an implementation. Here is the relevant section from the LessWrong 2 strategy doc:
Shortform (implementation unclear)
Many authors (including Eliezer) have requested a section of the site for more short-form thoughts, more similar to the length of an average FB post. It seems reasonable to have a section of the site for that, though I am not yet fully sure how it should be implemented.
↑ comment by Dagon · 2017-10-19T15:11:07.251Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Oh, quite. It's not my preference, but I'm well aware that I'm an outlier on many dimensions and accept that I won't usually have perfect options because of it.
Actually, my preference is "the good old days" when there was both, and the publishers were actively participating in chat. That's probably not available at all.
Replies from: gjm↑ comment by gjm · 2017-10-19T15:36:55.672Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think you may be taking me to have meant "You're a weirdo, because obviously The People Of Less Wrong want something different from what you want", but what I actually meant was "I bet you're not alone, and if I'm right then as more people with preferences like yours join LW2 it will become somewhat more informal and chatty, so rather than just deciding LW2 isn't for you you should use it and try to nudge it in directions that suit your preferences better, and see what happens".
(Overcoming Bias was "publish thoughts, get some comments". So was Less Wrong, to begin with. I think the only reason LW now leans as heavily toward chat as it does is that not much is being written and published here. My guess is that if LW2 succeeds in its goals then it will not be as chatty as present-LW, and that will be a good thing since it will be because there's lots of interesting stuff there that isn't chat.)
Replies from: Dagon, Viliam↑ comment by Dagon · 2017-10-20T19:48:23.213Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I tend to think I'm a weirdo, but that's not the issue (in this case, at least). More importantly, I don't think that either I nor The People Of Less Wrong have coherent enough wants to really identify whether my preference for how I remember LW being a few years ago is divergent or not.
↑ comment by Viliam · 2017-10-19T16:26:20.350Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I think the only reason LW now leans as heavily toward chat as it does is that not much is being written and published here.
Sounds reasonable to me. It's like sometimes there are more good articles and sometimes there are fewer good articles (depending on how motivated or busy or burned out the few good authors are), but the amount of comments is more or less constant, or slowly increasing over time. So when e.g. Eliezer suddenly stops producing tons of text, instead of the whole website slowing down evenly, it just becomes more chatroom-y, because people are still used to spending certain amount of time and posting certain amount of comments per week.
Maybe it would be better to have a separate chat area, so that when great articles temporarily stop coming, people won't react by converting their open-thread-level comments into articles.
↑ comment by fortyeridania · 2017-10-18T03:41:48.605Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
That's too bad; it probably doesn't have to be that way. If you can articulate what infrastructural features of 1.0 are missing from 2.0, perhaps the folks at 2.0 can accommodate them in some way.
Replies from: ChristianKl, Lumifer↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2017-10-18T11:01:00.819Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
At the moment their focus is on making 2.0 fast to load and given how important page loading time is I agree with that prioritisation. I think afterwards they want to improve the commenting experience.
One critical feature that's currently missing is notifications when someone replies to one's post or comment. I could also imagine a page that allows me to see all comments on comments that I upvoted and similar ways to list comments towards which I might reply.
Currently, there's no open thread on LW 2.0 and it might be a good idea to have one.
Replies from: Elo↑ comment by Elo · 2017-10-18T20:37:26.778Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
open thread, welcome thread, media thread, stupid questions thread.
Replies from: Viliam, ChristianKl↑ comment by Viliam · 2017-10-19T16:35:42.572Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Generally, it would be nice to have a specific support for regular threads. For example, if exactly one (the most recent) of each kind would be displayed on the front page; so you would have a section "regular threads" with links to the most recent open thread, media thread, stupid questions thread, etc.
To avoid abuse, only the moderators could create a new type of regular thread. There could also be a way to propose new regular threads, for example by having "proposed regular thread" as yet another type of a regular thread (i.e. all proposed threads would compete for one spot on the home page). In other words, only a new "Open Thread" could replace the previous "Open Thread" (because "Open Thread" is an officially supported thing), but e.g. an experimental "Rational Toothpaste Thread" would replace the yesterday's "Rational Jokes Thread" (because both are unsupported).
↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2017-10-20T16:19:45.034Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I did create the stupid questions thread.
↑ comment by Lumifer · 2017-10-18T14:33:04.563Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The 2.0 folks made a deliberate decision to step away from "let's just all talk about stuff" towards "people should write essays and others should attend to these essays and respectfully comment".
Replies from: Dagon↑ comment by Dagon · 2017-10-18T14:40:31.077Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
To be clear, I wish them well and hope for the best. LW 1.0 has been dying slowly for quite some time, and a new direction is probably a good idea, even if it's not my cup of tea. I'll likely still check in a bit.
It's probably time to formally shut down LW1.0, though. It's confusing to have two independent things called "less wrong".
Replies from: Lumifer↑ comment by Lumifer · 2017-10-18T15:27:03.224Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I believe LW 2.0 is now technically in open beta and once it ends (Nov 1, I think), there will be a vote about closing down LW 1.0 and moving everything over to 2.0.
Replies from: Elo↑ comment by Elo · 2017-10-18T20:35:54.159Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
NOTHING WILL BE SHUT DOWN UNTIL MEETUP FUNCTIONALITY IS ON THE NEW SITE. Many many active meetups run through 1.0. It's staying until functionality is over there.
Replies from: Habryka, Dagon↑ comment by Habryka · 2017-10-19T21:55:52.061Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yep, though I do expect this to happen at least in its basic functionality by the end of the year, though we might not be able to get full feature parity before we move over towards the new site. I would be interested in getting a list of the most important features you see for our meetup functionality.
Replies from: Elo↑ comment by Elo · 2017-10-19T22:24:03.507Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
- Being able to set a date and time for a meetup. (end time not desperately important)
- Being able to set a geographical location for meetups.
- When a meetup is created, local people are notified by email of the meetup. (every user has a location set)
- A description of the meetup (freeform text)
Bonus:
.5. Being able to set a recurring meetup. At the end of the last meetup the organiser is sent a link via email to "schedule the next meetup". (this avoids dead meetups staying around by opt-in reschedule.)
.6. Cohost listed, links to other listing's
.7. Import from other sites ie. Meetup, Facebook.
.8. Export to other sites - I. E. Meetup, Facebook.
.9. Photo sharing of meetups and communal photo repository.