Yeah, Iāve actually discussed that idea briefly with the EA Forum team and I think itād probably be good. Iāll send a link to this thread to them to give them one more data point in favor of doing this. (Though itās plausible to me that thereās some reason they shouldnāt do this which Iām overlookingāIād trust their bottom-line views here more than mine.)
But yeah, Iām also thinking of GDocs, blog posts posted elsewhere, and any other format, so I think we also need nudges like this post.
I think the main downside would be that some people might read only the summary and miss out on the reasoning parts, which are often the parts that are actually the most valuable. Or, relatedly, some authors like Scott Alexander do better when people have to read his hook and get sucked into his discursive style.
However, overall Iāve been sold on this idea, but do think that the UI would need to be done well. We havenāt prioritized it yet, but Iām definitely tempted, and I think thatās true for other team members as well.
fwiw, I think a good summary can & should also summarise the reasoning, not only the conclusions. (Though of course itāll still miss many details of both the reasoning and the conclusions.)
Iād also flag that I think this should be some sort of nudge, suggestion, optional box to fill in, or whatever, rather than a required box. So people could still decide to not have a summary if they wanted, e.g. if that would mess with their engaging discursive style in a given piece.
Yeah, Iāve actually discussed that idea briefly with the EA Forum team and I think itād probably be good. Iāll send a link to this thread to them to give them one more data point in favor of doing this. (Though itās plausible to me that thereās some reason they shouldnāt do this which Iām overlookingāIād trust their bottom-line views here more than mine.)
But yeah, Iām also thinking of GDocs, blog posts posted elsewhere, and any other format, so I think we also need nudges like this post.
I think the main downside would be that some people might read only the summary and miss out on the reasoning parts, which are often the parts that are actually the most valuable. Or, relatedly, some authors like Scott Alexander do better when people have to read his hook and get sucked into his discursive style.
However, overall Iāve been sold on this idea, but do think that the UI would need to be done well. We havenāt prioritized it yet, but Iām definitely tempted, and I think thatās true for other team members as well.
Cool, glad to hear that.
fwiw, I think a good summary can & should also summarise the reasoning, not only the conclusions. (Though of course itāll still miss many details of both the reasoning and the conclusions.)
Iād also flag that I think this should be some sort of nudge, suggestion, optional box to fill in, or whatever, rather than a required box. So people could still decide to not have a summary if they wanted, e.g. if that would mess with their engaging discursive style in a given piece.