[mkyc]

For those, like me, wondering why this sounds eerily familiar:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=124386

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/my-favorite-lia.html

It's great to see it posted again - though I do prefer that original overcoming bias version. I can only speculate as to why it received only 30 points two years ago. The key differences seem to be a) the linkbait title, b) the bolding of random sections within the post itself (which I found made it uglier to read) and c) the picture at the top of the post. Of course there's also d) we had fewer people.

I don't know what it is, and maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems posts like this tend to attract a lot of low-signal comments. Perhaps this can be used to our advantage: every few weeks, pg could let a few really linkbaity and low-grade posts past the filters. Pictures of cats, or something equally fun but inane. Something from the top of Digg. Everyone who upvoted such a post would have their voting rights suspended. Would this help or harm the quality of posts here?

[swombat]

Presentation is an important component in blogging as in other forms of presentation.

The arrangement of whitespace in the original post made it harder to read. The intro line in the second version is far better than the nondescript blurb in the overcomingbias version. The picture is more appealing, and underlines the tagline. All of these things conspire to ensure that instead of 1 out of 10 people actually reading the post, perhaps 1 in 3 read it.

The lesson: if you're going to publish great blog posts, make sure they're published in a great format that also drags the reader in.