LW codebase introduction prize post

[John Salvatier]

Hi folks,

I'm drafting a post introducing a prize for the best introduction to the LW codebase (link). Comments are appreciated.

John

[Laurent Bossavit]

> I'm drafting a post introducing a prize for the best introduction to
> the LW codebase (link). Comments are appreciated.

I would put criterion #2 way, way above criterion #1. Both objectives
strike me as overspecifying a solution, as opposed to stating what the
goal is.

My criteria would be something like, "Suppose I want to hack in some
new policy about upvotes and karma. For instance that some comments or
some posts can be declared karma-neutral for the purposes of
implementing polls or rank ordering of suggestions. Does this tutorial
help me form an accurate mental model of what happens as a result of
clicking the upvote button, in terms of how LW is implemented? Does it
help me think effectively about bringing about the desired effects?
Does it help me anticipate potentially detrimental unintended effects?
Does it help me map that (dynamic) execution model to specific bits of
the (static) source code? Does the tutorial cover enough of the major
relevant aspects of LW besides the example (picked at random) of votes
and karma?"

Cheers,
Laurent

[John Salvatier]

Yes, you're probably right on both counts. Perhaps it would better to include those of examples of what might go in such a document, or maybe I should just remove them. I do like your criteria.

[John Salvatier]

Oh, and thanks!

[John Salvatier]

I've edited the post and plan to post it sunday or monday (formatted well of course). Comments very useful!

[John Salvatier]

I've posted to the main page: http://lesswrong.com/lw/7x1/prize_for_the_best_introduction_to_the_lesswrong/

[Laurent Bossavit]

I missed that earlier: the first two links in the second paragraph are
broken.

On Sep 27, 6:34 pm, John Salvatier <jsalv...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm drafting a post introducing a prize for the best introduction to the LW

> codebase (link<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kcd01OPD338Y5lTBnO-xP3qevAE6h52R7...>).
> Comments are appreciated.
>
> John

[John Salvatier]

Thanks, they should now be fixed.