Search Ideas

I could get rid of the count everywhere, even on unfiltered views.

The displayed criticism count for a filtered parent can differ from the number of displayed criticisms.

But users are expecting a count.

For any filtered parent, the criticism badge could be shown without a count.

For any filtered parent, the criticism badge could be shown without any count.

I have this working to the point that it shows n / m, but getting the counter to update properly when new criticisms are posted on filtered parents is surprisingly difficult – so difficult the juice may not be worth the squeeze.

Fixed as of 27123bd.

Done as of 27123bd.

Bug: as you cycle through a parent’s versions on ideas#show, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings.

Bug when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions: on page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.

Shouldn’t have more than one criticism at a time.

That in and of itself isn’t a bug if the different revisions leading to the highlighted idea have different numbers of criticisms.

The issue also isn’t that there are other revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea.

The real issue is twofold:

1. On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
2. As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.

Bugs when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions:

1. On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
2. As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.

That it and of itself isn’t a bug if the different revisions leading to the highlighted idea have different numbers of criticisms.

The issue also isn’t that there are other revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea.

The real issue is twofold:

1. On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
2. As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.

The red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many pending criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five pending criticisms.

But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify pending criticisms.

There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only pending criticisms.

The feature wasn’t quite polished. For example, arrow navigation through the dropdown menu was missing. And there were some bugs. But it’s polished now and the bugs should be fixed as of 4ced719.

It leaves room for something, but it’s not clear what.

Well, he did say “partly”, so that leaves room for personal responsibility.

I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.

Should take personal responsibility and not blame the tool.

If your goal, like mine, is to live a life that is 100% guided by reason, which basically means (#2844) to never adopt ideas that have pending criticisms, you could use Veritula to identify ideas of yours that have pending criticisms so you can either reject those ideas or address the criticisms.

To that end, I suggest you submit a single idea you are confident is correct, and then try your hardest to criticize it. Depending on the idea, I may join you.

It’s a good goal to perfect an idea to the point you’ve mastered it, addressed all objections, understand the objections better than your opponents, etc.

If this sounds up your alley, I recommend starting with something easy. Zelalem tried writing a summary of fallibilism which, after 13 revisions, still contains mistakes.

I think this is partly to do with the fact that Veritula has no clear way of indicating when a resolution has been reached or a problem has been solved.

It does. For example, you could post an idea saying ‘I have decided to do X.’ Like in your discussion on where to move.

You can also indicate resolution of top-level criticisms by archiving them when they have pending counter-criticisms. The meta discussion is an example of top-level ideas reaching resolutions in this way.

See revision #2945.

Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for how you want to use Veritula?
I noticed that you’ve started a bunch of discussions but I don’t believe you’ve reached a resolution on any of them.

Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for using Veritula?

This is ambiguous. To be clear, are you asking if I would like to make an explicit personal methodology for using the site, as part of my effort described in #2899? Or are you inviting me to formulate an explicit methodology for users of Veritula in general? (I realise these aren’t mutually exclusive.)

This is ambiguous.

That’s a criticism, so this idea should be marked as a criticism.