Search Ideas

Done as of acb14e3.

The idea is not good if it has outstanding criticisms.

Don’t worry about which ideas are better than others. That’s a remnant of justificationism. Only go by whether an idea has outstanding criticisms.

You’ve since made the change to “a few changes” (as of #1894) but I think that change was premature.

Don’t make changes you don’t understand. Take questions literally and answer them.

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/The-Difference-Between-Few-and-A-Few-

No.

I went over it first and made a few changes. After that, Grammarly recommended that I remove the 'a' before 'criticism' and to remove the 'they are'.

This comment doesn’t belong here. It should have been a comment on #1885. And you shouldn’t have removed #1885. I’ll recover it.

What if, at that time, the best idea one has is the false idea?

I went over it first and made a few changes. After that, Grammarly recommended that I remove the 'a' before 'criticism' and to remove the 'they are'.

It could go both ways. Someone may have already read an idea and just wants to revise it, in which case having to scroll to the bottom is cumbersome.

Then the autofocus on the textarea would force a scroll basically to the bottom of the page. For sufficiently long ideas, that means scrolling past content the user wants to see.

… made few changes.

Did you mean to say ‘a few changes’?
Do you know what the difference is?

When it has received criticism and until the current criticism is resolved, that idea is seen as false.

‘The idea is considered false until all criticism is resolved.’

We accept that idea as true until it has received criticism.

‘until it receives criticism’

I went over it first and made few changes. After that, Grammarly recommended that I remove the 'a' before 'criticism' and to remove the 'they are'.

Cool. As discussed privately, I think you’d benefit from working on spelling and grammar.

Try pasting #1874 into Grammarly and revising the idea based on the improvements Grammarly suggests. (Don’t blindly accept word substitutions! Make sure any edits still make sense in the context of how Veritula works.)

Pasting anything you write into Grammarly before you submit it is probably a good policy to adopt in general.

There is a typo in "[i]t has a tpyo."

Could probably use Turbo frames instead.

There could be a separate button to filter comments down.

… must be their its own.

You’ve introduced a new typo. You should get in the habit of carefully reviewing your texts before you submit them.

If you change “Each idea and criticism, even if they are related must be their its own” to ‘Ideas (including criticisms) should generally be submitted separately even if related’, you get to address both current criticisms.

Each idea and criticism, even if they are related must be their its own.

The word ‘must’ is too strict here. As I explained in #1870, ideas should generally be submitted separately, but there are exceptions.

Good question. That can happen.

It’s ultimately at the author’s discretion. It’s generally best practice to submit one idea at a time.

However, if the author is aware of the risk of receiving bulk criticism but decides the risk is worth the benefit of including multiple ideas in a single post – because multiple ideas are required to make this particular post coherent, say – then that’s his prerogative.

It varies by situation and requires good judgment.

The red ‘Criticized’ label could be clickable and filter the displayed comments ‘in place’.

The red ‘Criticized’ label could be a link leading to a filtered version of ideas#show.

What if the point an author is trying to make takes multiple ideas? Say we are talking about comic books and I say "DC comics are better than Marvel, because Thor is a better character than Superman, even thou Batman might be a better character than Iron man?"

In light of (at the time of writing) three outstanding criticisms of your new terminology (#1630), what do you plan to do, if anything?

Some ideas: if you disagree with the criticisms, we could discuss further; if you agree, we could come up with ways to correct the error, like (just spitballing here) revising your terminology going forward or posting disclaimers on previous publications.

Either way, it would be good to reach some sort of conclusion.