As a representative of an org (CSER, and previously FHI) who has periodically posted updates on these orgs on the EA forum and previously LW, it’s very helpful to hear opinions (both positive and negative) on desirability and frequency of updates. I would be grateful for more opinions while it’s under discussion.
Given all the interest in this (fairly unrelated to top post) topic I wonder if it makes sense to do a different post/survey on what would be the ideal posting frequency for EA orgs on the EA forum. I know CS would be very responsive to information on this and I suspect all the other EA orgs would be as well.
It also seems a bit hard to deal with criticism that falls along somewhat contradicting lines of a) you’re not being transparent enough, I want more things like the monthly update and b) you’re too spammy, I want to see less things like the monthly update. (I do know there is a difference between number of posts and given information, but limiting number of posts does make it harder).
Well more transparency and EA Forum posts don’t have to be correlated. For example, I have read much of the updates posted on Charity Science web properties, and I think that’s a fine place for many of them to continue to live.
Yes. I agree with those who have pointed out that this derailed an important CEA conversation (and regret, in hindsight, contributing to this—my apologies), but the questions Joey raises are ones that it would be v useful to have more info on, in the context of a separate discussion.
Who would you suggest run such a survey? Usually, these sorts of things would be run by EA orgs, but in this case I’d be wary of almost any EA org running it since they’ve got such strong institutional motivations/incentives to interpret or present the data in a biased way.
If enough people feel the same as Michael, is there a case for having a forum subsection where e.g. updates/fundraising/recruitment calls for EA orgs could live?
Disadvantages I could see
‘branching’ the forum complicates and clutters it at a point where there still isn’t a huge amount of volume to support/justify such structures.
these updates might get less visibility.
Advantages (in addition to the forum being kept more free for discussion of EA ideas)
These updates would then all be clustered in one place, making it easier for a reader to do an overview of orgs without digging through the forum’s history.
As a representative of an org (CSER, and previously FHI) who has periodically posted updates on these orgs on the EA forum and previously LW, it’s very helpful to hear opinions (both positive and negative) on desirability and frequency of updates. I would be grateful for more opinions while it’s under discussion.
Thank you Michael for raising the question.
Given all the interest in this (fairly unrelated to top post) topic I wonder if it makes sense to do a different post/survey on what would be the ideal posting frequency for EA orgs on the EA forum. I know CS would be very responsive to information on this and I suspect all the other EA orgs would be as well.
It also seems a bit hard to deal with criticism that falls along somewhat contradicting lines of a) you’re not being transparent enough, I want more things like the monthly update and b) you’re too spammy, I want to see less things like the monthly update. (I do know there is a difference between number of posts and given information, but limiting number of posts does make it harder).
Well more transparency and EA Forum posts don’t have to be correlated. For example, I have read much of the updates posted on Charity Science web properties, and I think that’s a fine place for many of them to continue to live.
Yes. I agree with those who have pointed out that this derailed an important CEA conversation (and regret, in hindsight, contributing to this—my apologies), but the questions Joey raises are ones that it would be v useful to have more info on, in the context of a separate discussion.
Who would you suggest run such a survey? Usually, these sorts of things would be run by EA orgs, but in this case I’d be wary of almost any EA org running it since they’ve got such strong institutional motivations/incentives to interpret or present the data in a biased way.
If enough people feel the same as Michael, is there a case for having a forum subsection where e.g. updates/fundraising/recruitment calls for EA orgs could live?
Disadvantages I could see
‘branching’ the forum complicates and clutters it at a point where there still isn’t a huge amount of volume to support/justify such structures.
these updates might get less visibility.
Advantages (in addition to the forum being kept more free for discussion of EA ideas)
These updates would then all be clustered in one place, making it easier for a reader to do an overview of orgs without digging through the forum’s history.
I could make a links post of all EA orgs’ (semi-)annual reviews (if they have one up), and make it its own top-level post.