I’ve noticed that Deborah often linkposts prominent people being critical of EA, and these posts are often downvoted. Why is this?
On this specific post, I agree with Jason that an explanation of the relevancy would be useful (although personally, the title alone was enough), but I don’t think this imperfection justifies the downvotes.
Personally, I find them useful because it’s valuable to see what external critics are saying about EA. This helps me either a) learn from their critiques or b) rebut their critiques. Even if they are bad critiques and I don’t think it’s worth my time rebutting them, I think I should be aware of them because it’s valuable to understand how others perceive the movement I am connected to. I think this is the same for other Forum users.
This being the case, according to the Forum’s guidance on voting, I think I should upvote them. But, judging by the downvotes, others see it differently. If you are one of these other people could you explain yourself? Thanks!
I believe Deborah edited the title, and we can’t blame voters for voting on the title as it stood at the time of their vote.
I didn’t vote, but I think it’s reasonable to expect someone posting a link to say something of moderate substance about why they think it might be of value to the reader. I don’t think “this is bad criticism of FHI” is enough. Mentioning that this person has a wide audience of 1.25MM would be just enough, while summarizing the critique would be better.
Yeah, the old title was enough for me because I’d heard of Sabine, but I think your advice to have a title that provides more context is good, e.g., “Prominent YouTuber with millions of subscribers posts extensive critique of FHI”. I agree it’s reasonable to expect someone who is posting a link to say something about its relevance.
However, I don’t think it’s reasonable to downvote without first checking the relevancy if that checking can be done in seconds (as was the case here).
There should be a moderate bar for linkposting, as it takes up one of the frontpage slots. People may be downvoting because they see a link post with no body text as a low-effort post, and thus less likely to reflect consideration of the bar.
I think the bar for linkposts is supposed to the same as it is for original posts, no? At least, that’s how I’ve interpreted guidance published by mods on the subject.
If people are downvoting because they’re assuming a linkpost without a summary is low value then that’s a pity. Summaries are encouraged but they aren’t mandatory.
Or maybe down-voters are following Forum guidance perfectly—they’re downvoting because they don’t think it’s valuable for other Forum users to see prominent people publishing critiques. I disagree with this view, so it would be nice to see a defence of it.
Perhaps it would be valuable to have a ‘quick links’ section where this sort of thing could be shared without taking room from the front page? Or the guidance should advise people like Deborah to post this sort of thing in the quick takes section?
Ultimately, voting is an exercise in judgment by voters applying their own standards. I will say that I’ve seen very short text posts (as opposed to quick takes) get the same treatment.
Where the linkpost is to a video, I think it’s usually low value unless there’s enough information to enable the reader to make their own decision about whether to use their time to view it. I’m a little more forgiving with linkposted text, which can be quickly skimmed.
(Again, I did not vote and can only speculate on why others did)
“Personally, I find them useful because it’s valuable to see what external critics are saying about EA. This helps me either a) learn from their critiques or b) rebut their critiques. Even if they are bad critiques and I don’t think it’s worth my time rebutting them, I think I should be aware of them because it’s valuable to understand how others perceive the movement I am connected to.”
This explains my reasons for linkposting exactly. Perhaps the forum designers could improve the rating concept of linkposts accordingly. It needs to be different from other posts. There needs to be a way for readers to be able to indicate, say:
(1) Thanks for posting, glad it was brought to my attention OR This is irrelevant to EA concerns, why are you posting here?
(2) Like/Don’t like—the actual content
I was/am not aware of any ‘quick takes’ section of the forum.
I’ve noticed that Deborah often linkposts prominent people being critical of EA, and these posts are often downvoted. Why is this?
On this specific post, I agree with Jason that an explanation of the relevancy would be useful (although personally, the title alone was enough), but I don’t think this imperfection justifies the downvotes.
Personally, I find them useful because it’s valuable to see what external critics are saying about EA. This helps me either a) learn from their critiques or b) rebut their critiques. Even if they are bad critiques and I don’t think it’s worth my time rebutting them, I think I should be aware of them because it’s valuable to understand how others perceive the movement I am connected to. I think this is the same for other Forum users.
This being the case, according to the Forum’s guidance on voting, I think I should upvote them. But, judging by the downvotes, others see it differently. If you are one of these other people could you explain yourself? Thanks!
I believe Deborah edited the title, and we can’t blame voters for voting on the title as it stood at the time of their vote.
I didn’t vote, but I think it’s reasonable to expect someone posting a link to say something of moderate substance about why they think it might be of value to the reader. I don’t think “this is bad criticism of FHI” is enough. Mentioning that this person has a wide audience of 1.25MM would be just enough, while summarizing the critique would be better.
Yeah, the old title was enough for me because I’d heard of Sabine, but I think your advice to have a title that provides more context is good, e.g., “Prominent YouTuber with millions of subscribers posts extensive critique of FHI”. I agree it’s reasonable to expect someone who is posting a link to say something about its relevance.
However, I don’t think it’s reasonable to downvote without first checking the relevancy if that checking can be done in seconds (as was the case here).
There should be a moderate bar for linkposting, as it takes up one of the frontpage slots. People may be downvoting because they see a link post with no body text as a low-effort post, and thus less likely to reflect consideration of the bar.
I think the bar for linkposts is supposed to the same as it is for original posts, no? At least, that’s how I’ve interpreted guidance published by mods on the subject.
If people are downvoting because they’re assuming a linkpost without a summary is low value then that’s a pity. Summaries are encouraged but they aren’t mandatory.
Or maybe down-voters are following Forum guidance perfectly—they’re downvoting because they don’t think it’s valuable for other Forum users to see prominent people publishing critiques. I disagree with this view, so it would be nice to see a defence of it.
Perhaps it would be valuable to have a ‘quick links’ section where this sort of thing could be shared without taking room from the front page? Or the guidance should advise people like Deborah to post this sort of thing in the quick takes section?
Ultimately, voting is an exercise in judgment by voters applying their own standards. I will say that I’ve seen very short text posts (as opposed to quick takes) get the same treatment.
Where the linkpost is to a video, I think it’s usually low value unless there’s enough information to enable the reader to make their own decision about whether to use their time to view it. I’m a little more forgiving with linkposted text, which can be quickly skimmed.
(Again, I did not vote and can only speculate on why others did)
“Personally, I find them useful because it’s valuable to see what external critics are saying about EA. This helps me either a) learn from their critiques or b) rebut their critiques. Even if they are bad critiques and I don’t think it’s worth my time rebutting them, I think I should be aware of them because it’s valuable to understand how others perceive the movement I am connected to.”
This explains my reasons for linkposting exactly. Perhaps the forum designers could improve the rating concept of linkposts accordingly. It needs to be different from other posts. There needs to be a way for readers to be able to indicate, say:
(1) Thanks for posting, glad it was brought to my attention OR This is irrelevant to EA concerns, why are you posting here? (2) Like/Don’t like—the actual content
I was/am not aware of any ‘quick takes’ section of the forum.