Ben Pence

I like the Notion DB Format the best, but I would prefer

(1) the labels actually be more descriptive. Instead of "Audience", "Who is this for?". Instead of "Research", "Research Progress". Instead of "Certainty", "How confident are we in this intervention?". (2) A 1-2 sentence summary at the very, very top that says what this is, should you do it, and what the impact would be (3) I like the long form of the article and maybe that could be what comes below the metadata at the top?

I guess my biggest feedback is I find the matadata labels don't flow and make me have to think about what that could mean. For someone who is a regular user of the site, they might prefer this, but for someone coming from another site via link (which will probably be most people for awhile), I think it will turn people off

I think it'd be great if this is so easy to pick up as a first time viewer of the site that people feel comfortable sharing it with friends/family, not worrying whether it's too domain-specific. Network effect

I think notion is good

I think notion is good

The article lacked summarization so I didn’t like that. Is that what you mean?

Ben Williamson

Link to an explainer for the numbers, or at least justify them

To nitpick, Ben not sure about difficulty

Would advise public but with an adaptation (only public once we can explain the concept behind the ratings, like 80%–100% confidence, what does that mean)

Why is something ranked as moderate

Flag that the recommendations are for stablecoins

Distraction Blocker

Ben Williamson

What to do with conversion table scaling, posture intervention at 4 months is not bad, saving a few years is also good, but need to adjust how this is presented to people

Could use a non-linear scale, but that could be confusing; would probably make the most sense to group the impact scores into classifications (for example, a 1.5 to 4 being “Moderate Impact” etc)