On a side note, if for whatever reason you would not like your content in The Nonlinear Library, justfill out this form. We can remove that particular article or add you to a list to never add your content to the library, whichever you prefer.
Could post authors also get to first listen to what their post would sound like?
(For some posts, it might be perhaps difficult to know in advance whether the automatic narration would cause too many misunderstandings to be a net positive in audio form. This might be especially relevant for posts that were never meant to be “speech-like”, such as those that make heavy use of nested bullet points.)
I agree some posts will come out better in TTS than others. One thing we’re looking into doing is setting up some simple rules that will lead to some articles not being posted (e.g. a critical mass of images or numbers), or maybe a little disclaimer at the front of such articles along the lines of “This article has a lot of numbers in it, so you might want to consider reading the original at [Source]”.
Regardless, if ever anybody feels like the article has come out too bad to be net positive, they can fill out this form (t.ly/G73f) and we’ll remove it. Or, if you think in advance it’s not going to be good, just let us know (through the form or our contact form t.ly/YBIr) and we can make sure it never goes up. :)
That disclaimer for technical articles sounds good. :) Also, yeah, perhaps the authors themselves can pre-test their potentially tricky articles with some (similar enough) TTS, and then decide whether to opt out of the library. (Perhaps disclaimers could also exist for articles with a sufficient amount of hyperlinks, since many people use those instead of only explicit in-text references.)
Could post authors also get to first listen to what their post would sound like?
(For some posts, it might be perhaps difficult to know in advance whether the automatic narration would cause too many misunderstandings to be a net positive in audio form. This might be especially relevant for posts that were never meant to be “speech-like”, such as those that make heavy use of nested bullet points.)
I agree some posts will come out better in TTS than others. One thing we’re looking into doing is setting up some simple rules that will lead to some articles not being posted (e.g. a critical mass of images or numbers), or maybe a little disclaimer at the front of such articles along the lines of “This article has a lot of numbers in it, so you might want to consider reading the original at [Source]”.
Regardless, if ever anybody feels like the article has come out too bad to be net positive, they can fill out this form (t.ly/G73f) and we’ll remove it. Or, if you think in advance it’s not going to be good, just let us know (through the form or our contact form t.ly/YBIr) and we can make sure it never goes up. :)
That disclaimer for technical articles sounds good. :) Also, yeah, perhaps the authors themselves can pre-test their potentially tricky articles with some (similar enough) TTS, and then decide whether to opt out of the library. (Perhaps disclaimers could also exist for articles with a sufficient amount of hyperlinks, since many people use those instead of only explicit in-text references.)