This is a weak claim unless you provide outside evidence of survivorship bias. Just because a bias could exist isn’t evidence that it does exist in and of itself.

This feels like an example of our trigger happy use of biases to dismiss opinions we disagree with. What perspective, experience, or evidence makes you think survivorship bias is at play here?

In the comment you’re replying to, for example, the rate of un-abandoned RFC started ~20%, and decreased to ~5-10% over the period of GP’s review. That seems lije a very significant change to me, which is hidden by the surprise that the original number wasn’t higher.

Fair argument. I didn't put too much rigorous thought into my post, and really didn't mean offence, but to roughly explain my thinking:

- First, I wasn't trying to dismiss any opinions by bringing up survivorship bias, I brought it up because I think it's valuable to have a term to describe the general and probably bi-directional relationship between how notable something is and how well it's known many years after creation - I'd argue that the original comment's footnote [0] talking about "classic" papers is explicitly bringing survivorship, if not the survivorship bias, into the conversation.

Honestly, at this point I've kinda lost track of what I wanted to clarify here, so - I apologize for the confusion and, if interpreted as such, the offensive posting.

Have a good day.