I think it wouldbe useful to be able to see all the posts from a particular organisation all at once on the forum. For the most part, individuals from those organisations post, rather than a single organisation account it can be difficult to see e.g. all of Rethink Prioritiesā research on a given topic
Curious to hear if people think itās better to have tags or sequences for group these posts?
New issue:
How do we deal with name changes ? (E.g. EAF became CLR, .impact became rethink charity)
I think itās nice to have a single tag (the new name) for continuity but sometimes an org had a different focus or projects associated with the old name.
Maybe itās enough to mention in the tag description āpreviously called Xā?
Update: Iāve now made tags for Rethink Priorities, Future of Humanity Institute, and Global Priorities Institute. I believe Iāve tagged all RP posts. I wasnāt very thorough in tagging FHI or GPI posts. Other people can tag additional FHI and GPI posts, and/āor add tags for other orgs.
I think something like this would be a good idea :)
Some thoughts:
One downside could be that we might end up with quite a few of these tags, which then clutter up the tags page.
Maybe itād be best if the Forum team can set it up so thereās a separate, collapsable part of the tags page just for all the organisation tags?
That might also make it easier for someone whoās looking for org tags in general (without knowing what specific orgs might have tags) to find them.
Most EA organisations probably already have pages on their site where you can find all/āmost their research outputs. E.g., Rethink Prioritiesā publications page.
But one thing tags allows you to do is (from the home page of the forum) filter by multiple tags at once. So you could e.g. filter by both the Rethink Priorities tag and the Wild Animal Welfare tag, to find all of Rethinkās posts related to that topic.
That said, Iāve never actually used the approach of filtering by multiple tags myself.
And the lists of publications on an orgās site may often be organised by broad topic area anyway. Though this could still be useful if you want to see if an org wrote something related to a concept/ātopic they probably wouldnāt organise their pages by (perhaps because itās cross-cutting, slightly obscure, or wasnāt the main focus of the post) - e.g., if you want to see whether Rethink has written anything related to patient altruism.
I think tags might be better than sequences for this purpose. One reason is the above-mentioned benefit of allowing for filtering by both org and some tag. Another reason is that these posts usually wonāt really be sequences in the usual senseāit wonāt be the case that the order of publication is the most natural order of reading, and that one gains a lot from reading them all together. (Though some subset of each orgās posts may be a sequence, e.g. Rethinkās nuclear risk stuff.)
A complexity might be deciding which orgs should have tagsāin particular, should orgs which arenāt especially prominent or donāt post often have tags?
Maybe some forum users can just make tags for orgs they want there to be tags for, and then orgs can make tags for themselves if they want, and we can see what results.
(It happens to be that Iāll be working at Rethink soon, but this comment was just my own opinion, and I only used them as an example because Vaidehi did.)
I think rather than specific tags, it may be better to just have them regular tags. This would solve the issue about which organisations get org tags. I think itās okay for people to tag their own early stage projects or orgs even if they arenāt very big (Iām biased here as I have some projects which I would like to be able to link people to).
I donāt think thereās a lot of riskāhaving a tag doesnāt mean your project is endorsed by EA or anything, itās just a organisational tool.
Maybe some forum users can just make tags for orgs they want there to be tags for, and then orgs can make tags for themselves if they want, and we can see what results.
I think it wouldbe useful to be able to see all the posts from a particular organisation all at once on the forum. For the most part, individuals from those organisations post, rather than a single organisation account it can be difficult to see e.g. all of Rethink Prioritiesā research on a given topic
Curious to hear if people think itās better to have tags or sequences for group these posts?
New issue: How do we deal with name changes ? (E.g. EAF became CLR, .impact became rethink charity)
I think itās nice to have a single tag (the new name) for continuity but sometimes an org had a different focus or projects associated with the old name.
Maybe itās enough to mention in the tag description āpreviously called Xā?
Update: Iāve now made tags for Rethink Priorities, Future of Humanity Institute, and Global Priorities Institute. I believe Iāve tagged all RP posts. I wasnāt very thorough in tagging FHI or GPI posts. Other people can tag additional FHI and GPI posts, and/āor add tags for other orgs.
I think something like this would be a good idea :)
Some thoughts:
One downside could be that we might end up with quite a few of these tags, which then clutter up the tags page.
Maybe itād be best if the Forum team can set it up so thereās a separate, collapsable part of the tags page just for all the organisation tags?
That might also make it easier for someone whoās looking for org tags in general (without knowing what specific orgs might have tags) to find them.
Most EA organisations probably already have pages on their site where you can find all/āmost their research outputs. E.g., Rethink Prioritiesā publications page.
But one thing tags allows you to do is (from the home page of the forum) filter by multiple tags at once. So you could e.g. filter by both the Rethink Priorities tag and the Wild Animal Welfare tag, to find all of Rethinkās posts related to that topic.
That said, Iāve never actually used the approach of filtering by multiple tags myself.
And the lists of publications on an orgās site may often be organised by broad topic area anyway. Though this could still be useful if you want to see if an org wrote something related to a concept/ātopic they probably wouldnāt organise their pages by (perhaps because itās cross-cutting, slightly obscure, or wasnāt the main focus of the post) - e.g., if you want to see whether Rethink has written anything related to patient altruism.
I think tags might be better than sequences for this purpose. One reason is the above-mentioned benefit of allowing for filtering by both org and some tag. Another reason is that these posts usually wonāt really be sequences in the usual senseāit wonāt be the case that the order of publication is the most natural order of reading, and that one gains a lot from reading them all together. (Though some subset of each orgās posts may be a sequence, e.g. Rethinkās nuclear risk stuff.)
A complexity might be deciding which orgs should have tagsāin particular, should orgs which arenāt especially prominent or donāt post often have tags?
Maybe some forum users can just make tags for orgs they want there to be tags for, and then orgs can make tags for themselves if they want, and we can see what results.
(It happens to be that Iāll be working at Rethink soon, but this comment was just my own opinion, and I only used them as an example because Vaidehi did.)
I agree that tags seem better than sequences.
I think rather than specific tags, it may be better to just have them regular tags. This would solve the issue about which organisations get org tags. I think itās okay for people to tag their own early stage projects or orgs even if they arenāt very big (Iām biased here as I have some projects which I would like to be able to link people to).
I donāt think thereās a lot of riskāhaving a tag doesnāt mean your project is endorsed by EA or anything, itās just a organisational tool.
I think this is probably the best strategy!
Also congrats on starting at Rethink :)
A possibility would be to add the organization as a coauthor for all official posts.