Hide table of contents

I wonder whether I should write more comments pointing out what I liked in a post even if I don't have anything to criticise instead of just silently upvoting.

- Denise Melchin

I've heard this question quite a few times, and the answer is: Yes! Absolutely yes! Tell authors when you like something they've written!

Imaginary case study

Consider the experience of a Forum author who writes a post most readers like, in a world where people only comment if they have a critique. 

They go to the Forum and see a string of comments:

  • "You're wrong about A."
  • "You're wrong about B."
  • "Why didn't you mention C?"

The post could have dozens of upvotes, but if it looks like anyone who closely engaged with it found something to criticize, the author may not feel great about their work. 

(This doesn't mean that criticism isn't valuable: If you find something to criticize, you should also probably tell the author.)

In a world where people share what they like about posts, the comments might be:

  • "You're wrong about A."
    • "I see what the above poster means about point A1, but I thought point A2 was actually an interesting take, and could be correct under assumption Q."
  • "I hadn't read this post you linked to — thanks for the reference!"
  • "You're wrong about B."
  • "I really liked your discussion of B!"
  • "Why didn't you mention C?"
  • "Your points about D and E were really helpful for a project I'm working on."

The criticism still exists, but I'd expect the author to feel better about responding if they know the post was valuable to some readers.

Also, positive reactions are useful feedback in their own right!

Frequently asked questions

What if my positive comment is just "thanks, I enjoyed this?" 

Still good! Even a generic nice comment will be much more salient to most authors than a silent upvote.

What if my positive comment just takes up space in a way that distracts from more important critical discussion and intellectual progress and whatnot?

This is paraphrased from things I've actually heard when talking to Forum users. 

While I understand the concern, I must emphasize that the Forum exists on the Internet, a system of interconnected computer networks where space is effectively unlimited. We also offer the "scrollbar," a feature people can use to skip over comments they don't want to read or discuss. 

If someone finds your positive comment distracting, they can scroll past it. But there's at least one person who probably won't find it distracting — the author.

Conclusion

If you like a post, tell the author!

If you don't like a post, it's also fine to tell the author!

But at the very least, let's try to make sure authors don't get a negatively-skewed view of how people think about their posts.

Comments19


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I am supportive of this. May I also suggest that there's more than one way to tell the author?

  • I have occasionally received a comment at the bottom of the post, saying something like "I liked this post", or "this was really interesting, thank you!". I have liked these comments.
  • Occasionally, people have taken the effort send a message via the EA Forum's messaging mechanism to tell me how much they like a post. This has been really lovely.

Thank you for this post! I appreciate these kind of posts with suggestions about how to use the forum.

On the specific point, I appreciate the positivity of people posting that they like a particular article, and feel it makes it seem more appealing to write articles. Also, I often find it a bit tough to tell when I write something whether people find it useful, what they find it useful for, and what parts seem particularly useful. So I really appreciate people who find posts useful not just upvoting (which might just be a sign they found it a pleasant read), but actually commenting with some more information.

This is my favorite part:"While I understand the concern, I must emphasize that the Forum exists on the Internet, a system of interconnected computer networks where space is effectively unlimited."

I think this is in fact a very useful reminder. And it made me laugh, and read it again and laugh again. Thank you :)

(I like this post.)

I like this comment

This this this! As a PhD student in economics, I'm always pushing for the same thing in academia. People usually think saying nice job is useless, because it doesn't help people improve. It's important for people to know what they're doing right, though. It's also important for people to get positive reinforcement to keep going down a path, so if you want someone to keep persevering (which I hope we generally do), it's good to give them a boost when they do a good job.

Yeah exactly, that's how facebook/twitter/reddit works, positive feedback

In accordance with the post: I thought this was useful. As an old time forum hack I often have people say they feel too scared to post here because all you seem to get is people trying to destroy your ideas. It shouldn't be the case that the only people brave enough to post here are those types who score low in agreeableness (such as yours truly).

Also on this, how to we get engagement from people who are not in general well read? (Such as me truly)

Thank you for writing this, Aaron. I'd be much more excited about participating in a forum with this cultural norm :) <3

As an author, this is SO TRUE.

Honestly the "people only comment to criticize" pattern incentivizes authors to be edgy to get any feedback on their ideas at all.

This post is great!

This is a good suggestion, one I'll keep in mind as I read posts that I find valuable. As someone who appreciates how hard it is to write a complex essay, I can say that it's encouraging to see positive responses alongside critiques. Positive responses register more clearly than an upvote and often include useful information as well.

I like this post. I think I'll try and do this much more often here as an experiment. 

I mean, I'm active in many places online... as a lurker. But if I'm going to practice spreading positive good this is probably a great place to practice. 

(It's easier when you're told to do it directly, but I figure if I don't do it now, I probably won't later, and I'd like to start doing this, so...)

I really like this post! I also like to remember that complainy people are more likely to leave reviews, when I'm reading reviews for a product or something. Helps me take the negative ones with a grain of salt.

hey, thanks for this post! I find it quite nice.

I like the general idea here, but personally I dislike comments that don't tell the the reader new information, so just saying the equivalent of "yay" without adding something is likely to get a downvote from me if the comment is upvoted, especially if it gets upvoted above more substantial comments.

I think one or two positive posts are fine. I'd agree if every post were like that. But that's true of all post types.

I guess I think there is new information to the author which is, "someone like my post enough to specifically say so". You could argue that's included in the post karma, but emotionally, I don't think they are the same.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 23m read
 · 
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them   The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.   Executive Summary * Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA. * We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization. * We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories: * Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization. * We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level: * Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success. * Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere. * Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement. * See the Summary Table below to view the considerations. * We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types. * With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others. * We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community. Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5. While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount. To provide some context: According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation. I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations. In light of this, I would like to: * Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries. * Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions. Uncertainties: * Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities? * Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive? I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would