I feel the same. Iām also generally wary when a name (or design) needs extensive reasoning to justify it. Most people will never hear the reasoning, so their gut reaction/ā ability to remember it matters more. Iām not sure how the name agency worked, but Iād be more optimistic if I knew the name had been tested with your target audience vs. had a background story that made sense?
Agnes Stenlund šø
Karma: 1,092
I canāt speak for the choice of principles themselves, but can give some context on why the change was made in the intro essay (and clarify a mistake I made).
There are different versions of EA principles online. One version was CEAās guiding principles you mention from 2017, and had endorsement from some other organisations. CEA added a new intro essay to effectivealtruism.org in 2022, with a different variation of a list of principles and Ben Todd as a main author: you can read the Forum post announcing the new essay here, and see the archived version here.
After Zachās post outlining the set of principles that are core to CEAās principles-first approach (that had existed for some time and been published on the CEA website, but not on effectivealtruism.org), we updated them in the intro essay for consistency. I also find Zachās footnotehelpful context:
āThis list of principles isnāt totally exhaustive. For example, CEAās website lists a number of āother principles and toolsā below these core four principles and āWhat is Effective Altruism?ā lists principles like ācollaborative spiritā, but many of them seem to be ancillary or downstream of the core principles. There are also other principles like integrity that seem both true and extremely important to me, but also seem to be less unique to EA compared to the four core principles (e.g. I think many other communities would also embrace integrity as a principle).ā
I also want to say thanks to you (and @Kestrelšø) for pointing out that collaborative spirit is no longer mentioned, that was actually a mistake! When we updated the principles in the essay we still wanted to reference collaborative spirit, but I left that paragraph out by mistake. Iāve now added it:
āItās often possible to achieve more by working together, and doing this effectively requires high standards of honesty, integrity, and compassion. Effective altruism does not mean supporting āends justify the meansā reasoning, but rather is about being a good citizen, while ambitiously working toward a better world.ā
This is something weāre still trying to figure out since taking over the project earlier this year (and it is, for good reasons, the most common question I get when talking to users about the board). For many people the other boards will already do a good job if youāre looking for these types of roles. Weāre still evaluating the amount of resources we want to spend on improving the board, alongside talking to students and group members to better understand what they find useful.
My thinking on the unique value of the Opportunities board is still developing, but here are some ways Iām thinking about the board being useful:
A less intimidating space for the specific audience itās targeting. Many group organisers use the board to show group members or people who just heard about EA.
By focusing only on part-time roles we may be able to get much more breadth here than the other boards are able to, including opportunities that donāt fit neatly on a job board. Iām especially optimistic about finding ways to source more local opportunities outside of US and Europe (something 80k isnāt focusing on right now but which @Conor Barnes š¶ mentioned has been requested)
I could also imagine the EA brand and EA website being more effective at driving traffic than e.g. Probably Good, which may mean we should in fact not be strongly niched but instead also start showing full time roles (especially with 80kās move towards more AI Safety roles)
More exposure to good opportunities seems valuable in general. Some people will come across 80k or Probably Good, others will find the Opportunities board. Weāve already heard impact stories from people who found a role here they wouldnāt otherwise have seen, either because it wasnāt on the other boards, or because they werenāt looking there at the time.
Iām still exploring if this is the right niche and how to communicate it more clearly. For now Iām fairly optimistic the board is helping people find work they otherwise wouldnāt, which makes me excited to keep developing and growing it.
Any tips for writing about EA ideas in general? Curious about common mistakes you see people make, like commonly used framings or word choices that donāt resonate with a broader audience.
Like @Toby Tremlettš¹ I did a quick initial vote and will come back and edit my vote once Iāve read more marginal funding posts + see whoās in the lead.
(Another plug here for the Spotify playlist we created with the marginal funding posts in case you (like me) prefer listening to posts)
š§ Weāve created a Spotify playlist with this years marginal funding posts.
Posts with <30 karma donāt get narrated so arenāt included in the playlist.
Iād love this too, thanks both for pushing this forward. I think itād be great to have a space similar to the Groups resource centre, but for comms about EA (including visualisations like these). Would probably make sense to host on https://āāeffectivealtruism.org so that journalists, policy makers, etc. can also find and use them. This work could fit within the realms of redesigning effectivealtruism.org too, since a big part of that work is to better communicate EA to the world...
Drew this one for @Toby Tremlettš¹, who took some liberties with āanimalā:
Iām part of a working group at CEA thatās started scoping out improvements for effectivealtruism.org. Our main goals are:
Improve understanding of what EA is (clarify and simplify messaging, better address common misconceptions, showcase more tangible examples of impact, people, and projects)
Improve perception of EA (show more of the altruistic and other-directedness parts of EA alongside the effective, pragmatic, results-driven parts, feature more testimonials and impact stories from a broader range of people, make it feel more human and up-to-date)
Increase high-value actions (improve navigation, increase newsletter and VP signups, make it easier to find actionable info)
For the first couple of weeks, Iāll be testing how the current site performs against these goals, then move on to the redesign, which Iāll user-test against the same goals.
If youāve visited the current site and have opinions, Iād love to hear them. Some prompts that might help:
Do you remember what your first impression was?
Have you ever struggled to find specific info on the site?
Is there anything that annoys you?
What do you think could be confusing to someone who hasnāt heard about EA before?
Whatās been most helpful to you? What do you like?
If you prefer to write your thoughts anonymously you can do so here, although Iād encourage you to comment on this quick take so others can agree or disagree vote (and I can get a sense of how much the feedback resonates).
Some of these features were released last month but only announced now (post reactions and the author improvements). Some features weāre launching together to reduce the amount of times users feel surprised by things changing (right sidebar on the Frontpage, āRecent discussionā redesign, Best of page, etc.). There are pros and cons to both continuous releases and bundled releases, this time we did a bit of both.
Forum team update: Shortform is now called āQuick takesā, has a section on the Frontpage, and changed in some other smaller ways.
Hereās whatās new:
Shortform is now called āQuick takesā (Shortform was confusing to many people)
Thereās a section for Quick takes on the Frontpage to improve visibility (you can still post Quick takes that donāt show up on the Frontpage; just deselect the āFrontpageā tag). Those will only show up in the separate view
Some other design changes to make things clearer and easier to use:
Thereās an input field in the section on the Frontpage, so you can add a Quick take there directly
Improvements to the page where all of an authorās Quick takes are shown
Other visual changes to the Quick takes and the creation flow
Rationale/ācontext:
In some cases, Forum users want to share (and read) less polished ideas or other content that doesnāt seem like a full post on the Forum. Shortform was designed years back to fill this gap, but the Shortform feature was tucked away, hard to read, and had a name that most users didnāt understand.
Over the past few months, weāve been exploring ways to encourage lower-barrier discussions, culminating in this latest version of Quick takes.
As always, weād love feedback on these changes. You can comment on my Quick take (or email us if you prefer). Weāll also monitor how this feature gets used and improve it over time.
I appreciate this observation, this is something Iād like to keep an eye on. The reason I changed it is because many newer users we spoke to didnāt understand why some comment bubbles were blue and some not. I assumed this to be because turning something blue when unread isnāt a commonly used design pattern elsewhere on the internet (unless itās a blue circle next to the unread thing). My hope with the new design is that it will be more easily understood as ānew and unreadā since it uses a pattern more widely known to mean that. That said, I agree with you that itās less eye-catching than before, and if you feel like you constantly miss new comments due to this change, Iād love to know
Thanks for letting us know! Choice of typeface is no doubt a subjective thing and some will prefer the old font. In terms of inconsistencyāone of the most popular principles for typeface combinations is the one Iāve gone with hereāpairing a sans serif header with a serif body. This combination can be found online on places like Medium and Substack, and was already the case inside of Forum posts before this change. Typefaces are often even created in pairs of serif and sans serif that are meant to be paired this way.
This is obviously not a hard rule and you may still prefer other combinations (itās not uncommon to use all sans serif on web, or all serif if itās a magazine), and Iām definitely open to trying different things to improve legibility and tweak the āpersonalityā of the Forum through typefaces (but itās not something I expect to prioritize changing right now)
Correct! There is a detailed article here about how Inter was made. Itās open-source and designed specifically for screens.
Question: Has anyone here applied to a role they found on the EA Opportunities board? (Attaching an image of what it used to look like + what it looks like now).
Iām curious if you ended up getting the role or not, and would really appreciate hearing either way. Iām trying to get a sense of how many applications and placements the board is leading to. Happy to DM if thatās easier!