3 ms·

>I am free to just spew out content regardless of its quality. Oh, that's a great goal to have...

by searine 11y ago

orasis 11y ago
By focusing on volume, I get quality as a side effect. I'm very proud of the the app I've created and the feedback I get from my users: "This app gives a text reminder to do what everyone wants to do: relax, love one's self and others, and bring peace and light into the world. I smile when the alert message appears and feel grateful to the makers of this app for creating a pleasant, quick way to meditate at the most stressful point of my day. I have recommended it to many people" https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/7-second-meditation-daily/id667197203?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/7-second-meditation-daily/id...
- searine 11y ago
  Volume and efficiency are great, but nobody likes a shit cannon.
squeaky-clean 11y ago
I actually think that's a great idea, because then the users and algorithm decide what's good for you, and it will hide the low quality content automatically. You have to do that sort of "curation" anyways anytime you make something. You have to continually decide whether it's worth it to keep working on something, and then decide if it's good enough to release. People tend to be pretty bad judges of this (especially for more creative tasks. There are many examples of someone's most famous song/book/painting not being their own favorite, or even being their least favorite!). So why not relieve some of that stress, and let the users pick what they really like, instead of you guessing for them?
- searine 11y ago
  "I promise, there is a diamond somewhere in this bathtub of shit". Efficiency is great, but there still needs to be some quality standards.
  - harperlee 11y ago
    Most probably the input is not random words, and instead orasis writes pieces aiming to have quality. He just doesn't bleed each and every word and accepts a maximum time per text piece, accepting that some variation in quality is inescapable, and that it is most efficient to allocate less time per piece so he gets more pieces. Note that this "less time" is relative, and probably does not go to zero. It's just orasis has found a level of effort per piece that is effective, and he relies on the algorithm so he does not need to establish a threshold below which he will not publish - as those pieces will be swallowed by the rest of higher quality corpus. He might have leaned toward a little bit of hyperbole in "just spew out content regardless of its quality" for the purposes of clarity and expressiveness, which most of the readers have correctly parsed, but I don't think you have the right to tag orasis' output as shit based solely on the information of the page. That's a little bit rude, in fact.

>I am free to just spew out content regardless of its quality. Oh, that's a great goal to have...

by searine 11y ago

>I am free to just spew out content regardless of its quality. Oh, that's a great goal to have...

By focusing on volume, I get quality as a side effect. I'm very proud of the the app I've created and the feedback I get from my users: "This app gives a text reminder to do what everyone wants to do: relax, love one's self and others, and bring peace and light into the world. I smile when the alert message appears and feel grateful to the makers of this app for creating a pleasant, quick way to meditate at the most stressful point of my day. I have recommended it to many people" https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/7-second-meditation-daily/id667197203?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/7-second-meditation-daily/id...

searine 11y ago
Volume and efficiency are great, but nobody likes a shit cannon.

squeaky-clean 11y ago

I actually think that's a great idea, because then the users and algorithm decide what's good for you, and it will hide the low quality content automatically. You have to do that sort of "curation" anyways anytime you make something. You have to continually decide whether it's worth it to keep working on something, and then decide if it's good enough to release. People tend to be pretty bad judges of this (especially for more creative tasks. There are many examples of someone's most famous song/book/painting not being their own favorite, or even being their least favorite!). So why not relieve some of that stress, and let the users pick what they really like, instead of you guessing for them?

searine 11y ago
"I promise, there is a diamond somewhere in this bathtub of shit". Efficiency is great, but there still needs to be some quality standards.
- harperlee 11y ago
  Most probably the input is not random words, and instead orasis writes pieces aiming to have quality. He just doesn't bleed each and every word and accepts a maximum time per text piece, accepting that some variation in quality is inescapable, and that it is most efficient to allocate less time per piece so he gets more pieces. Note that this "less time" is relative, and probably does not go to zero. It's just orasis has found a level of effort per piece that is effective, and he relies on the algorithm so he does not need to establish a threshold below which he will not publish - as those pieces will be swallowed by the rest of higher quality corpus. He might have leaned toward a little bit of hyperbole in "just spew out content regardless of its quality" for the purposes of clarity and expressiveness, which most of the readers have correctly parsed, but I don't think you have the right to tag orasis' output as shit based solely on the information of the page. That's a little bit rude, in fact.