I agree its problematic, but I think it is better to have it rather than not. Personally I like the separation as it helps my brain to organise the topics, and I feel like community posts still get plenty of attention. You may well be right that CEA is biased (its hard not to be) and the criteria could be made clearer. I’m also not sure community posts get less attention (forum team can tell me). Some might healthy Karmas on current community posts!
I did poorly on your test, but those are the hard cases you chose. Generally in life its not best to make sweeping decisions based on rare/hard cases.
+1. I don’t know about attention, but I do think the ‘community’ tag has a vibe of being ‘less important’ than posts without the tag. I think this is mostly a feature of the community itself and what users want the forum to be primarily focussed on. I don’t mind this, even though I personally enjoy community posts just as much, and I also like the separation. But, if my vibes-based sense is correct, then that does make the system by which posts are tagged slightly more consequential. So I think it’s good that Arepo looked into this and is bringing it up. Thanks for doing that!
You may well be right that CEA is biased (its hard not to be) and the criteria could be made clearer.
My suggestion if the current separation is kept would be to reallow community tagging of posts, but require it to go above a certain threshold and/or have a delay, so that posts don’t bounce back and forward between the two feeds.
I’m also not sure community posts get less attention (forum team can tell me).
FWIW I suspect both that being tagged community causes reduced attention, but that they get less attention overall since many low-karma posts slide off the feed without having time to get tagged. I.e. getting attention causes a post to be (more likely to be) tagged community.
If the separation is going to continue, I’d prefer it be entrusted to (elected? appointed but independent-of-CEA?) stewards. My concern is that community tagging might end up being voting by a different name (users will be less likely to tag things they like).
If you want independent criteria-based judgements, it might realistically be a good option to have the judgements made by an LLM—with the benefit of having the classification instantly (as a bonus you could publish the prompt used, so the judgements would be easier for people to audit).
Fyi, the Forum team has experimented with LLMs for tagging posts (and for automating some other tasks, like reviewing new users), but so far none have been accurate enough to rely on. Nonetheless, I appreciate your comment, since we weren’t really tracking the transparency/auditing upside of using LLMs.
(I’m curious how much you’ve invested in giving them detailed prompts about what information to assess in applying particular tags, or even more structured workflows, vs just taking smart models and seeing if they can one-shot it; but I don’t really need to know any of this.)
I don’t think i agree with this general principle. I think there are few serious requests for extra beurocracy here on the forum and they can probably be assessed one by one on merit?
If the requests were overwhelming then maybe I’d agree
I agree its problematic, but I think it is better to have it rather than not. Personally I like the separation as it helps my brain to organise the topics, and I feel like community posts still get plenty of attention. You may well be right that CEA is biased (its hard not to be) and the criteria could be
made clearer. I’m also not sure community posts get less attention (forum team can tell me). Some might healthy Karmas on current community posts!
I did poorly on your test, but those are the hard cases you chose. Generally in life its not best to make sweeping decisions based on rare/hard cases.
+1. I don’t know about attention, but I do think the ‘community’ tag has a vibe of being ‘less important’ than posts without the tag. I think this is mostly a feature of the community itself and what users want the forum to be primarily focussed on. I don’t mind this, even though I personally enjoy community posts just as much, and I also like the separation. But, if my vibes-based sense is correct, then that does make the system by which posts are tagged slightly more consequential. So I think it’s good that Arepo looked into this and is bringing it up. Thanks for doing that!
My suggestion if the current separation is kept would be to reallow community tagging of posts, but require it to go above a certain threshold and/or have a delay, so that posts don’t bounce back and forward between the two feeds.
FWIW I suspect both that being tagged community causes reduced attention, but that they get less attention overall since many low-karma posts slide off the feed without having time to get tagged. I.e. getting attention causes a post to be (more likely to be) tagged community.
If the separation is going to continue, I’d prefer it be entrusted to (elected? appointed but independent-of-CEA?) stewards. My concern is that community tagging might end up being voting by a different name (users will be less likely to tag things they like).
If you want independent criteria-based judgements, it might realistically be a good option to have the judgements made by an LLM—with the benefit of having the classification instantly (as a bonus you could publish the prompt used, so the judgements would be easier for people to audit).
Fyi, the Forum team has experimented with LLMs for tagging posts (and for automating some other tasks, like reviewing new users), but so far none have been accurate enough to rely on. Nonetheless, I appreciate your comment, since we weren’t really tracking the transparency/auditing upside of using LLMs.
That makes sense!
(I’m curious how much you’ve invested in giving them detailed prompts about what information to assess in applying particular tags, or even more structured workflows, vs just taking smart models and seeing if they can one-shot it; but I don’t really need to know any of this.)
As a general principle I think the forum team should reject ~ all requests for additional bureaucracy.
I don’t think i agree with this general principle. I think there are few serious requests for extra beurocracy here on the forum and they can probably be assessed one by one on merit?
If the requests were overwhelming then maybe I’d agree
Bit I’m not a libertarian ;)