Some of this is true (using clear structures and visuals where appropriate, incorporating external perspectives where possible). On the other hand, some great content doesn’t build on existing work or recommend action.
The Prize exists in large part to “formalize” what good content looks like to a reasonable extent, using actual content; I don’t think you could capture everything about a great post with an artificial example or two, but if someone were to skim through a couple of Prize posts, I think they’d get the right idea about what we (the judges) think is valuable.
From what I read regarding the committee’s rationale for selecting “Effective altruism and free riding,” I infer that good posts:
1) are visually concise (e. g. use tables, highlights, heading structures, infographics)
2) build on/respond to existing EA work when possible
3) recommend actionable items that EAs may follow
4) incorporate external perspectives when possible
Am I right? Should this be formalized and perhaps an example created, in order to facilitate information exchange and to promote meaningful actions?
Some of this is true (using clear structures and visuals where appropriate, incorporating external perspectives where possible). On the other hand, some great content doesn’t build on existing work or recommend action.
The Prize exists in large part to “formalize” what good content looks like to a reasonable extent, using actual content; I don’t think you could capture everything about a great post with an artificial example or two, but if someone were to skim through a couple of Prize posts, I think they’d get the right idea about what we (the judges) think is valuable.
OK, that makes sense, thank you.