Thanks, that’s great to hear.
The prize has been going on for a while, which seems important, and I think the transparency of the Prize post is really important for making common knowledge of what kind of work there is demand for. So overall it’s pretty great.
The structure of feedback looks to me like: “here’s the object-level content of the post, and here are 2-3 reasons we liked it”. I think you could be more clear about what you want to incentivise. More precisely, the current structure doesn’t answer:
How strong were the reasons relative to each other? (e.g. maybe removing Reason A would make the person win 2nd prize instead of 1st, but removing Reason B might make them win no prize)
Were the reasons only jointly sufficient to merit the prize, or might accomplishing only one of them have worked?
What other properties did the post display, which did not merit the prize? For example, maybe prize-meriting posts tend to be quite long—even though length is not something you want to incentivise on the margin.
Why did the posts end up ordered the way they did? Beyond “the black-box voting process gave that verdict” :) Currently I don’t know why SHOW was judged as deserving 4x the prize money of “The Case for the Hotel”, for example.
[Note: I double-checked with the moderators before posting this to ensure it was not too “marketingy”.]
When I and Tom came up with that, I don’t think we meant “belief” to be imbued with the usual philosophical connotations. Rather, we intended it to mean something like “action-guiding, introspectively accessible representation of a state of affairs existing independently of whether it is queried”.
When people ask me what I think about the world, I can often come up with lots of intelligent sounding answers—but it is unfortunately more rare that my actual actions, plans and normative evaluations are somehow suitably hooked up to, and crucially depend upon, those answers.