The Mookse and the Gripes discussion
General Non-Book Discussions
>
Thoughts on how we can improve or tidy the rankings topics
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
I would be very reluctant to use a hosting service like Google Docs to host the master lists, not least because some of us are not allowed to access such services from the office.
I am in two minds about Anto's suggestion of removing the book links, and I think the main combined table would already be too big for one comment even if I did that. The list of all longlisted and shortlisted books including links is also very useful as a reference for those wanting to read more.
The three tables all serve subtly different purposes, but I maintain all of them from a single base spreadsheet, that does all of the clever formatting, as well as constructing the links and the automatic numbering.
What I can't do is help individual contributors to number their own lists.
Mod
(i) There is no quick way to see which comments have been updated since a certain date. This makes it very easy to miss an update when updating the master list.
(ii) The maximum comment size is too small
(iii) There is no way to add a header to a discussion that can be edited by anyone other than the topic's creator
(iv) You can only add new comments at the end of the list, and they won't stay there once more users add comments.
(v) Autonumbered lists are not supported by the comment format
Hugh wrote: "One possibility would be to move the tables into a new summary thread, and link to them or index them from the rankings thread."That's not a bad a solution, I'm in favour of that.
As for the list of all short- and longlisted books, maybe a solution is updating the locked Booker Index thread to include longlisted books as well, and links, and then link to that index from the individual rankings thread. Or creating a new similar index thread.
Finally, pinning the rankings thread (except maybe when there's the annual booker) so it stays near the top and never gets buried might entice more people.
Mod
I'm not sure how many people navigate the group from its desktop front page, but having a lot of pinned threads can block other more recent topics from view. Personally I don't like there being a lot of pinned threads for that reason, but others may not care about this so much,
Mod
Antono, will you edit the first comment? It still says "This is a thread to rank books from all Booker Prize years which were shortlisted or longlisted, but did not win. There is another thread to rank the winners"I have never used goodreads in anything but desktop mode so I have no idea. But I agree that ideally as few threads as possible should be pinned.
Mod
My intention in allowing users to include winners was at least partly motivated by wanting to include active longlists and shortlists in my own rankings without having to go back and weed out books that went on to win. This was not envisaged when the thread was first created, and the "Ranking the Winners" thread continues to be more popular and more active mostly because the lists are shorter, so we are not trying to replace it.
Mod
Hugh wrote: "...the "Ranking the Winners" thread continues to be more popular and more active mostly because the lists are shorter, so we are not trying to replace it. ..."I get that, but it would still be reasonable to change it to something along the lines of "This is a thread to rank books from all Booker Prize years which were shortlisted or longlisted. There is a separate thread to rank winners only." At least remove the "but did not win".
Mod
Thanks
Neat! And I've removed my comments from the other thread.
As a fairly new member, I would be interested in participating now that I'm getting caught up with other lists, but I'm not sure how quickly I will get to it. One idea I have at this point would be for each person to create a topic with their name under the main threads that Hugh creates. That way an individual can add an updated list to the thread and Hugh could get a notification. Here is an example of what I mean from another group, Catching Up On Classics:https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...
I saw the post about Google Sheets not being an option at work, but I will still throw out the idea of a shared Google sheet like this one as it would allow for sorting by the individuals participating:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
I am not an expert and don't know what it takes to set up a sheet like this, but if I'm right, there would be a ranking column and the participant would just have to change the numbers and re-sort by the number column when the rankings change or books are added.
Mod
That is interesting, but I'd prefer to keep the rankings threads where they are, in the existing folders, though the results could be displayed anywhere - either in a different folder or somewhere external. To be honest checking the "last edited" on the comments doesn't take that long except for the busiest current long/shortlists, and I would still have to transfer the same information into the calculations spreadsheets.
It's interesting how different groups have developed different systems. Not easy changing to a different system when all users are used to something else though. I agree with Hugh, as long as the current system doesn't make things harder for him than they have to be.
It is definitely about what’s best for Hugh and I recognize and appreciate the volunteer work that goes into these rankings!
Mod
Mod
Food for though on a pre-Booker Friday afternoon. Streamlining the ranking tables might be easier for Hugh and more accessible to newer members. Using last year's longlist, maybe something like this:Simplified Table:
1. Bewilderment by Richard Powers: 1.90, +73
2. A Passage North by Anuk Arudpragasam: 2.48, +145
3. The Promise by Damon Galgut: 3.35, +115
4. Second Place by Rachel Cusk: 3.52, +122
5. The Fortune Men by Nadifa Mohamed: 4.50, +46
6. Klara and the Sun by Kazuo Ishiguro: 5.87, +8
7. No One is Talking About This by Patricia Lockwood: 6.07, +15
8. An Island by Karen Jennings: 6.32, -24
9. The Sweetness of Water by Nathan Harris: 7.61, -50
10. China Room by Sunjeev Sahota: 8.26, -109
11. A Town Called Solace by Mary Lawson: 8.91, -125
12. Light Perpetual by Francis Spufford: 8.94, -106
13. Great Circle by Maggie Shipstead: 8.98, -110
My two cents.
Mod
Good points Hugh and ultimately up to you. We could continue to do two tables - one simplified and the second an expanded table with additional information.
I wish I had the brain for math. Hugh explained what each number represents, but I still can’t grasp it. I have a lot or respect for math as the language of the universe and it bothers me that it eludes me.
This is by far the biggest set of rankings we have attempted, and its current format is messy partly because the size of the lists involved means that some of them are spread over multiple comments.
If the discussion proves fruitful we could learn lessons for some of our other ranking threads.
These are the comments so far:
(Kristian:)
"In order for this to actually give us any useful idea of where we all stand on all the bookers, we need:
- More participants (tell your friends and Milkman-discussion induced enemies!)
- Rankings from current participants need updating?
- A better/updated introduction (seeing as winners are now included, which I hope is a firm decision).
- A less messy thread? :)
Just some suggestions, as I think ranking all booker nominees & winners is a pretty sweet idea!
(Am of course willing to postpone any further discussion of this to after Booker 2019. And willing to help with anything if necessary.) "
(Hugh):
"Thanks Kristian. Yes, it is a bit messy, but that's just the way it evolved. The biggest problem is that GoodReads comment size limit is too small. There are also so many books on the list that for those of us who have read a lot, ranking them all seems a huge and arbitrary task, and renumbering the list after an update is worse. Yes, it would be nice to see more interest here but even then maintaining the spreadsheet would be very time consuming."
(Antonomasia:)
"I am impressed that people still attempt this. On one level I want to apologise for creating it as it's a lot of work, but at the same time some people do find it interesting.
I haven't updated mine for the reason Hugh describes, but the renumbering could probably be done much more quickly using software and pasting in the list.
A new thread would require everyone to post again which isn't fair / won't be possible. (Some of them because they left around the time of the Milkman disagreements!) Posts can't be moved between threads by mods unlike in some forum types
Hugh would it make spacing better if you didn't include links?
Here we are making the thread even more messy by discussing in it!"
(Kristian:)
"It's certainly a lot of work for both participants and mods. If overall people find it too burdensome there's not much reason to try and spark interest again.
Office Word should do the job for automatic renumbering.
Some things that might make the thread less messy:
- Deciding on one comparison method (I don't know how either of the algorithms work, but with so many books involved, wouldn't a relative ranking system à la Paul give more accurate results?)
- Me not posting this comment (too late).
- Limiting the league tables to only 100 or 200, i.e. 1 comment (but of course people may wanna follow the climb of a book they like that lies waaaay down the list).
- Linking to a complete list of the books (maybe an excel sheet) instead of posting the full booker list across several comments.
- Continuing this discussion elsewhere."