I sent Vicky an email at the time of publishing rather than sharing a draft in advance. I didnât pre-share for two reasons: I donât have an existing relationship with anyone at AIM, so cold-emailing a stranger and asking them to review a draft on a deadline felt like a heavier ask than a heads-up at publication, and I tried to write the post so that any factual claim can be verified in a few minutes from the public spreadsheets (the cell references in each finding are there for that purpose). Vasco Griloâs recent methodology posts on AIM CEAs are part of the same public conversation, and Vicky has engaged with those publicly on the Forum, which is part of why the published-with-heads-up route felt appropriate for a contribution in the same vein.
That said, Iâm new to posting on the Forum and Iâd take your read on the convention seriously. If the norm here is that pre-sharing should happen even when the analysis is grounded in public data, Iâd want to know for next time.
The way youâve gone about it seems reasonable enough to me (i.e. I donât think you need to do anything to correct it now).
I still think it is ideal to run a critique like this past an organisation firstâprimarily because of the chance of misunderstandings. Iâm being agnostic here about whether a misunderstanding would be your fault or the fault of AIM for using ambiguous terms/â entering the wrong number etc⊠The thing weâd be trying to avoid is spreading a critique of an organisation that is based on a hard to dispel/âcorrect misunderstanding (many more people would see a critique than a correction).
I explain in the post that the mod team can help you get some feedback from the org first if youâd rather not do it yourself/â donât feel you have a warm enough lead. Just dm me on the Forum if youâd like that help in the future.
PS- given âIâm new to posting on the Forum and Iâd take your read on the convention seriouslyâ Iâd also add that I think youâd get more readers if you shared the whole post here. When I first saw this I thought this was the whole post (link-post and cross-post are pretty easy to conflate on the Forum). If you instead want people to spend time on your blog website, Iâd just make sure to put a âcontinue readingâ link at the end. Though, youâll get more comments if you put the full post on the Forum.
Hey! Just checking, did you run this past AIM first? We recommend that you do, out of politeness but also to avoid easy to dispell misunderstandings.
I sent Vicky an email at the time of publishing rather than sharing a draft in advance. I didnât pre-share for two reasons: I donât have an existing relationship with anyone at AIM, so cold-emailing a stranger and asking them to review a draft on a deadline felt like a heavier ask than a heads-up at publication, and I tried to write the post so that any factual claim can be verified in a few minutes from the public spreadsheets (the cell references in each finding are there for that purpose). Vasco Griloâs recent methodology posts on AIM CEAs are part of the same public conversation, and Vicky has engaged with those publicly on the Forum, which is part of why the published-with-heads-up route felt appropriate for a contribution in the same vein.
That said, Iâm new to posting on the Forum and Iâd take your read on the convention seriously. If the norm here is that pre-sharing should happen even when the analysis is grounded in public data, Iâd want to know for next time.
Cheers!
The way youâve gone about it seems reasonable enough to me (i.e. I donât think you need to do anything to correct it now).
I still think it is ideal to run a critique like this past an organisation firstâprimarily because of the chance of misunderstandings. Iâm being agnostic here about whether a misunderstanding would be your fault or the fault of AIM for using ambiguous terms/â entering the wrong number etc⊠The thing weâd be trying to avoid is spreading a critique of an organisation that is based on a hard to dispel/âcorrect misunderstanding (many more people would see a critique than a correction).
I explain in the post that the mod team can help you get some feedback from the org first if youâd rather not do it yourself/â donât feel you have a warm enough lead. Just dm me on the Forum if youâd like that help in the future.
PS- given âIâm new to posting on the Forum and Iâd take your read on the convention seriouslyâ Iâd also add that I think youâd get more readers if you shared the whole post here. When I first saw this I thought this was the whole post (link-post and cross-post are pretty easy to conflate on the Forum). If you instead want people to spend time on your blog website, Iâd just make sure to put a âcontinue readingâ link at the end. Though, youâll get more comments if you put the full post on the Forum.