I think this has a lot of potential- excellent work!
Some suggestions / questions / comments for discussion:
Could one shorten the procedure by something like the final version perfected i.e. assuming that things are transitive?
Could one have people rate pairs several times to tap into the ‘crowd within’?
Could one restrict people’s option space, e.g. just orders of magnitude options, 2x, 5x, 10x, 100x, 1000x, 10000x?
Also reminded me of this piece on ‘Putting Logarithmic-Quality Scales On Time’… I wonder whether this tool could help with project prioritization.
Could one have rank each items on several dimensions, e.g. scale, solvability, neglectedness?
I’d also like to hear people’s opinion on ‘Why Charities Usually Don’t Differ Astronomically in Expected Cost-Effectiveness’, which argues that ‘many charities differ by at most ~10 to ~100 times, and within a given field, the multipliers are probably less than a factor of ~5.’ and seems relevant here.
Wonderful comment.
But on #6, isn’t it simple?: The wiki stub has 100k times fewer readers than Superintelligence (and even less influence-weighted readers), it bears on an issue >1k times less important, it contains 1k fewer novel points… 11 OOMs, easy.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
I think this has a lot of potential- excellent work!
Some suggestions / questions / comments for discussion:
Could one shorten the procedure by something like the final version perfected i.e. assuming that things are transitive?
Could one have people rate pairs several times to tap into the ‘crowd within’?
Could one restrict people’s option space, e.g. just orders of magnitude options, 2x, 5x, 10x, 100x, 1000x, 10000x?
Also reminded me of this piece on ‘Putting Logarithmic-Quality Scales On Time’… I wonder whether this tool could help with project prioritization.
Could one have rank each items on several dimensions, e.g. scale, solvability, neglectedness?
I’d also like to hear people’s opinion on ‘Why Charities Usually Don’t Differ Astronomically in Expected Cost-Effectiveness’, which argues that ‘many charities differ by at most ~10 to ~100 times, and within a given field, the multipliers are probably less than a factor of ~5.’ and seems relevant here.
Wonderful comment.
But on #6, isn’t it simple?: The wiki stub has 100k times fewer readers than Superintelligence (and even less influence-weighted readers), it bears on an issue >1k times less important, it contains 1k fewer novel points… 11 OOMs, easy.