Search Ideas

A single new idea somewhere down the tree could invalidate the cache and slow things down again.

Initial page loads would still be slow for users.

To be clear, if you copy the entire box quote and paste it into a textarea, it will start with the > sign. I just double checked.

You’re saying you’d still want the > if you only copy/pasted part of the box quote, right?

Cache invalidation for user-based caching sounds like a nightmare.

On initial page load, I could just load the first ten or so top-level ideas and their immediate children, just to reduce wait times and populate the page. Then load the rest asynchronously.

I could lazy load ideas: only load the parts of the page that would be visible on the current viewport. Then load more parts as the user scrolls.

I could cache ideas so deeply nested trees can be rendered at once.

I could cache ideas so deeply nested trees can be rendered at once.

Discussions are getting slower to render as they grow. It’s a rendering issue (not a db issue).

Feature idea: page at /ideas/:id/guide which shows you an idea and helps you address all pending criticisms one by one, if any. At the end, it shows a message ‘You’re all set!’ or something like that.

On iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page.

Changing the query on the search page moves the cursor to the start of the query input. It should move to the end or, ideally, keep its position.

On the search page, there should be a button to clear the query input.

Feature idea: a page that shows you a random idea of yours that has pending criticisms and then helps you address them all.

Then people could occasionally check the second tab for ideas they think they can rationally hold but actually can’t. And then they can work on addressing criticisms. A kind of ‘mental housekeeping’ to ensure they never accidentally hold on to problematic ideas.

Done as of f2531a2.

… all of our knowledge is tentatively true.

This is still false, see #2603. You moved it from one place to another but I don’t see how that helped.

I didn’t want to just write what you have suggested, parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing.

I didn’t just want to write what you have suggested, as parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing. test edit

But you didn’t write my suggestions in your own words. You ignored them and instead wrote something else.

You didn’t write my suggestions in your own words. You ignored them and instead wrote something else.

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge is tentatively true…

That isn’t true either.

I had already suggested replacements for the first sentence in both #2374 and #2589. At the time of writing, those ideas have no pending criticisms. You could have safely gone with either one.

Instead, you wrote something different for no apparent reason and introduced a new error in the process.

What are you doing man, come on

Would be nice highlighting strings matching the query in search results.

As of 2d3d38f, system-generated ideas are excluded from search results. They can be included again by checking a new checkmark in the form.

Automatically generated ideas are polluting the search page.