Thanks, this was a good nudge to curate! 
(probably don't agree on 'single most' but definitely underrated!)

meta-comment: "X-change my mind" is a great opportunity for a debate slider (if you want more input/ comments)

Meta-comment: I would love for there to be more of a norm for link-posting old and gold posts which are relevant to current discussions. 

I'm running a session on 'writing on the EA Forum' at EAG London at this moment, and participants are going to reply to this quick take with ideas for Forum posts. 
Please encourage any ideas you'd like to see written up as full posts!

[edit: the forum went down halfway through the activity, there were many more great ideas in the session]

Sorry you had that experience!
I upvoted "finding voice" because I thought it was interesting as a short fiction piece.
One thing to note is that karma isn't a fully considered 'value of your writing' score. I fairly often downvote something on the Forum that I would enjoy reading elsewhere. Posts on the Forum frontpage should be relevant to the project of effective altruism, and high karma posts are highly relevant and good. Reading your other posts, I'd guess that the downvotes/ lack of upvotes is more to do with relevance than quality. Though writing by LLMs is generally still poor quality (or technically good, but lacking in substance), so it might be a bit of that as well.

Just to note that I think we should be sceptical that a review from 4 years ago still applies today. I'm fairly sure that the staff and research direction has changed over the last 4 years such that this may no longer apply (though I'm not stating that it doesn't for sure).

Sidenote: I don't think a "diversity survey" is egregious side-taking. Just going off the title, seems pretty normal and (at least) mildly good. Also, so much of animal advocacy is at least somewhat left-coded that I'd be very surprised if someone who would be scared off by "diversity survey" in a title hadn't already been scared off by something else. 
 

Also, whoops- should have linked to this

Interesting point r.e. karma. I do think it increases somewhat non-linearly, i.e. a post above 50 karma is one I am very likely to include in the digest, and I think that people do vote based on some sort of fixed deservingness number for karma. I.e. a post can hit 60 karma very quickly from the first day's voters, and then be read by many others who don't vote much at all (because they think the post is worth about 60 objectively). Maybe I'm wrong though, I should check if karma totals anchor around particular numbers or not. 

Big +1 on this, I used to use the 'open everyone interesting in a new tab' method, and I had far too few meetings at EAGs + it took me ages. The spreadsheet has saved me a lot of time, and got me a lot more meetings. 

This is great - I'm looking forward to reading the rest. 
I often avoid thinking in this direction because it feels dangerous to expose yourself to a possibly unbounded scepticism about impact. But it's not authentic to avoid the question of unawareness. Thanks for nudging me to think about this again!
PS- unless this is answered in later posts in the sequence - what's the relationship between 'unawareness' and 'complex cluelessness' and 'crucial considerations'? They seem to be pointing at the same concept (we don't know for sure that we are aware of the biggest effect our actions will have/ the most relevant value to the actions we are taking).