Just want to register some disagreement here about the name change, to others in this thread and Will (not just you Gemma!). In rough order of decreasing importance:
I really donât like the name MoreGood. Itâs a direct callback to LessWrong. I donât want to have to endorse LW to endorse EAF, or EA more generally, or the causes we care about, and this name change would signal that. Yes, thereâs some shared intellectual history, but I donât think LW-rationalism is inherent to or necessary for EA.
For people new to/âinterested in EA, theyâll probably search for âEAâ or âEffective Altruismâ. They wouldnât know the rebrand or name change unless there was a way to preserve it for SEO.
I think EA Forum is fine, and it is the major place for EA discussion online at the moment. I donât think itâs that unrepresentative of EA?
Any other online forum will also be skewed towards those online or âextremely onlineâ. I think EA Twitter is much worse for this than the Forum.
In the spirit of do-ocracy, thereâs no reason that other people canât set up an alternative forum with a different focus/âset of norms, though it will probably suffer from the network effects that make it difficult to challenge social media incumbents.
I do accept it was just a small draft suggestion though.
I really donât like the name MoreGood. Itâs a direct callback to LessWrong. I donât want to have to endorse LW to endorse EAF, or EA more generally, or the causes we care about, and this name change would signal that. Yes, thereâs some shared intellectual history, but I donât think LW-rationalism is inherent to or necessary for EA.
I donât think it would signal this to many people.
For people new to/âinterested in EA, theyâll probably search for âEAâ or âEffective Altruismâ. They wouldnât know the rebrand or name change unless there was a way to preserve it for SEO.
To me this is a feature, not a bug. I personally think having a slightly higher barrier to entry (you have to be engaged enough to have found the forum via other means than the first page of Google results) would do this forum good overall.
I think EA Forum is fine, and it is the major place for EA discussion online at the moment. I donât think itâs that representative of EA?
I think having a very descriptive name is probably not worth the increase in times this forum gets quoted with more apparent authority than it actually has. [Edit: This is quite theoretical. These are the only actual examples I can think of right now and theyâre basically fine.]
Any other online forum will also be skewed towards those online or âextremely onlineâ. I think EA Twitter is much worse for this than the Forum.
Agreed. Itâs still a downside to me that a less clear name means that thereâll be more fairly engaged EAs who end up with just Twitter etc. to discuss EA online.
In the spirit of do-ocracy, thereâs no reason that other people canât set up an alternative forum with a different focus/âset of norms, though it will probably suffer from the network effects that make it difficult to challenge social media incumbents.
Sure, but the name change would make people feel more empowered to? (And Iâm undecided on whether more forums would be good or bad.)
I wonder if âthe CEA forumâ would work? Low edit distance, gives the idea that itâs related to EA while not necessarily representing all of it. Downside is that it works less well if CEA changes their name.
Just want to register some disagreement here about the name change, to others in this thread and Will (not just you Gemma!). In rough order of decreasing importance:
I really donât like the name MoreGood. Itâs a direct callback to LessWrong. I donât want to have to endorse LW to endorse EAF, or EA more generally, or the causes we care about, and this name change would signal that. Yes, thereâs some shared intellectual history, but I donât think LW-rationalism is inherent to or necessary for EA.
For people new to/âinterested in EA, theyâll probably search for âEAâ or âEffective Altruismâ. They wouldnât know the rebrand or name change unless there was a way to preserve it for SEO.
I think EA Forum is fine, and it is the major place for EA discussion online at the moment. I donât think itâs that unrepresentative of EA?
Any other online forum will also be skewed towards those online or âextremely onlineâ. I think EA Twitter is much worse for this than the Forum.
In the spirit of do-ocracy, thereâs no reason that other people canât set up an alternative forum with a different focus/âset of norms, though it will probably suffer from the network effects that make it difficult to challenge social media incumbents.
I do accept it was just a small draft suggestion though.
Some thoughts from me (as a big fan of MoreGood):
I donât think it would signal this to many people.
To me this is a feature, not a bug. I personally think having a slightly higher barrier to entry (you have to be engaged enough to have found the forum via other means than the first page of Google results) would do this forum good overall.
I think having a very descriptive name is probably not worth the increase in times this forum gets quoted with more apparent authority than it actually has. [Edit: This is quite theoretical. These are the only actual examples I can think of right now and theyâre basically fine.]
Agreed. Itâs still a downside to me that a less clear name means that thereâll be more fairly engaged EAs who end up with just Twitter etc. to discuss EA online.
Sure, but the name change would make people feel more empowered to? (And Iâm undecided on whether more forums would be good or bad.)
I wonder if âthe CEA forumâ would work? Low edit distance, gives the idea that itâs related to EA while not necessarily representing all of it. Downside is that it works less well if CEA changes their name.