The Extra Cool Group! (of people Michael is experimenting on) discussion
Pertaining to the project
>
The Top Reviewers List: Are you a pandering vote whore?
message 201:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Dec 02, 2010 09:45AM
I really love Prince. A lot. He sucks for moving to Toronto though. I am fair weather about this.
reply
|
flag
I've met Frank and Trace! MST3K 4evah.Really?
ME = jealous.
I miss that show so much. RiffTrax and The Film Crew just aren't the same...
Ceridwen wrote: "No, they do often respond well to comments, but the poll was a mess from start to finish. I edited my comment above - I wasn't trying to be mean to you, and I think it sounded that way."No offense taken. I've never heard of the poll... I was just referring to the fact that they listen to user comments, and even if they don't always implement them the way we like, they at least listen first. Which is more than most websites creators do.
I've met Frank and Trace! MST3K 4evah.
Yeah. They wouldn't remember me or anything - I was doing my best tongue-tied mental patient impression. I am very suave.
Yeah. They wouldn't remember me or anything - I was doing my best tongue-tied mental patient impression. I am very suave.
I'd want to live in Saint Olaf. I'd write the best reviews out of that town.
Because Rose Nylund was from there...?
Because all I gotta do is wear a horned hat as a bra and they'll love me.
Jessica wrote: "How do Minnesotans feel about him?I'm curious."
My Dad & I used to listen to "A Prarie Home Companion" every week when it was first being aired, way way back when it was only a St. Paul public radio show. Dad loved that show -- he especially loved how it sounded on his classy Telefunken all-band tube radio, a prized possession of his -- while my attention kind of faded in & out from it. I remember loving some parts. I still don't think I've ever sat down and listened to an entire episode end-to-end. But so Keillor's voice is so fully intertwingled with my post-divorce Minneapolis childhood, probably if I met him I'd call him "Dad".
Dad used to talk big about taking me to the World Theater to see the show live someday. I think I wasn't interested. Now I wish he'd forced me. It was, like, twenty minutes away.
David wrote: "In THEORY -- please note that I said IN THEORY -- the best reviewers list is meritocratic, but who the hell cares about the top reviewers?..."i've noted that this is a theory! in my way of thinking, there is not too great a difference between best and top reviewers and the labels can't really be seen as more than a fun thing for GR members - rather than a true sign of 'quality', whatever that even may mean to the individual reader.
for top reviewers, obviously it is about quantity. for best reviewers, it may appear to be purely about quality, but that theory goes out the window when (1) considering that YA & PNR have the most energetic fanbases on here and reviewers who post there are going to get votes no matter what, and to a lesser extent, (2) taking into account the number of active friends a reviewer may have.
that said, i'm one of those people who enjoys checking out the top 10-20 top reviewers from time to time. there are many excellent review writers in there and i've gotten a lot of great suggestions from reviewing their shelves and their reviews.
David wrote: "In THEORY -- please note that I said IN THEORY -- the best reviewers list is meritocratic, but who the hell cares about the top reviewers? Why would I be interested to know that Jennifer Wardrip wrote 4099 reviews?"Meritocratic? Can't be. Jennifer Wardrip's reviews are other people's posted on her web site and then reposted here. As with the copyright issue on the Mascot (my sparkly plaid spotted frog with neon outlining was the best anyway, if a leeetle tasteless) GR should at least check the top reviewers output is original.
All the top lists that rely on votes can be manipulated by, as Mark says, having a large fan/friend/group base whatever the genre. Or another site and asking people to join GR and friend you etc. It helps to be able to do good reviews, some of the top reviews are excellent, but it isn't necessary.
I remember when there was a list for top reader and the consistent top few were people who had quite small Read lists but TBR lists in the thousands. Some people just like seeing their name in lights.
Actually, I think the only list that's worth anything is the one you get if you take the Top 50 Best Reviewers and REMOVE the Romance/YA gang. Then what you're left with is people who have earned all their votes by the sweat of their brow.
I think the only list that's worth anything is the one you get if you take the Top 50 Best Reviewers and REMOVE the Romance/YA gang. Then what you're left with is people who have earned all their votes by the sweat of their brow. YESSIR!
AMEN!
:)
As we have been discussing, they vote for each other as an article of faith. Sir, they are suborned.
Meritocratic? Can't be. Jennifer Wardrip's reviews are other people's posted on her web site and then reposted here.Um... that's why I said 'in theory' -- and repeated it. There is at least a theoretical basis for usefulness in the best reviewers chart. There isn't in any of the other charts, so far as I can tell.
Thanks, Paul. I knew I'd missed something.
Yeah, I'd also like to mention in response to mark and Petra that the friend thing is often more an effect than a cause when it comes to quality reviewers--some of the the best reviewers rarely (if ever) friend-request anyone, but they accept friend requests from people who like their material and would probably continue following them/voting regardless. So having more friends is, for many high-quality reviewers, an indication of their quality rather than a means of gathering votes. Obviously, having more friends will lead to more votes regardless of how you picked up the friends, but in the scenario I mention--accepting requests from 'fans'--you could certainly argue that these are earned votes. And if you spend just a little time mentally eliminating the YA/Romance and other obvious manipulators from the list, the people who are left will (in my opinion) give you a pretty good idea about who the best and most consistent reviewers are. I also think the accumulation of followers is at least somewhat meaningful re: review quality, although these numbers get blurred by the fact that some people have stricter friending policies than others.
This may be true in general, but I got friend requests from several of the 'top' reviewers with large friends lists. What is more, just like with authors whose requests I didn't accept, I got them more than once. There is no way I can accept that Jennifer Wardrip should be in any best reviewer list let alone at the top when she doesn't write the reviews
Petra X wrote: "There is no way I can accept that Jennifer Wardrip should be in any best reviewer list let alone at the top when she doesn't write the reviews"Um, I can shed some light on that mystery. At least for the change in her ranking that happened from last week to this week. There is a certain gr user who will go unnamed (no, it's not me) who has railed against voting and in a fit of boredom created some automated program to give a few hundred votes to a couple people overnight.
This betrays the belief that voters actually read the reviews, that the best reviews get the votes. There was some frustration about people just voting for their friends, right? In this person mind, upending the list was a subversive way of sticking it to the system.
Sigh. Ignoring the obvious blips like that, and if necessary, mentally screening out certain genres, the lists are generally a good way of seeing good stuff. Of course, it's not perfect for a host of reasons already outlined earlier.
I don't look at the Top Reviewer's lists very often, perhaps every few months at most these days, but I definitely see the Wardrip name all the time.I don't have anything against Wardrip, if she exists, just an aggregate of reviewers against individual ones in any top list. Casts doubt on the credibility of the list.
However I think it sounds really fun to wreck the system with an automated program.
"mentally eliminating the YA/Romance and other obvious manipulators from the list, the people who are left will (in my opinion) give you a pretty good idea about who the best and most consistent reviewers are."I was right up there with you until I got to this part. Then again, I like to think that people 'like' my reviews because I work pretty damn hard to make them interesting and different.
The list is spoiled because of the manipulators, aggregators, and other gamers. That doesn't mean that the some of the reviewers, perhaps the majority, don't write great reviews and the votes are genuine marks of appreciation.
Kat wrote: ""mentally eliminating the YA/Romance and other obvious manipulators from the list, the people who are left will (in my opinion) give you a pretty good idea about who the best and most consistent re..."I didn't mean to suggest that YA/Romance reviewers aren't writing good reviews of the books they read (I wouldn't know), but rather that these genre reviewers generally have very limited overlap with the other reviewers. Many of us have zero interest in YA/Romance books (and vice versa, perhaps) and therefore the groups are often mutually exclusive--hence the 'mental elimination' required.
I realize that by saying "other obvious manipulators" my original statement wrongly included all YA/Romance reviewers in this category. Sorry about that.
And of course the 'best reviewers' list really means 'most popular reviewers', which isn't quite the same thing. 'Best' is a much harder thing to nail down.
All this talk about the lists is making me think they're weirdly useful. They have a really broad representation of various reading tastes. Sure, I don't care about romance, but the reviewers that have made the "best" lists - I agree this is a loaded term - reviewing mostly romance are writing long, thoughtful reviews about their chosen genre. It's not two-line allcaps garbage. If you go down the list, you can see folk who have all kinds of interests, though they tend to have a genre they read more than others. There's people who review primary children's books, or YA, science fiction nerds (represent!), non-fiction readers, lit fic, etc. etc. I'm not interested in some of this stuff, so I don't read those reviews, but the people on the "best" lists tend to be really actively engaged with their reading sub-groups. Sure, the system can be gamed and is imperfect, but the reviewers on the lists tend to be really regular about their reviewing, and read a ton, whatever it is.
For example, I think it's goofy that Joe from Pittsburgh is on the list - and I have nothing against him personally - with 2415 votes, 2233 of them coming from one single freaking Twilight review. That doesn't say much for his engagement with reading YA, but more with the power of Twilight to garner votes. With 33 reviews, I'm not going to be following or friending him. He just doesn't review enough. I have made friends or follow a lot of people on the list whose reading interest overlap mine in places. They write regularly about their reading, and it makes sense that people respond to that. There are tons of reviewers who never make the list who I think are freaking brilliant, but they often are sporadic in their reviewing, and that's a big component in the lists.
Holy blah blah. I will stop talking now.
For example, I think it's goofy that Joe from Pittsburgh is on the list - and I have nothing against him personally - with 2415 votes, 2233 of them coming from one single freaking Twilight review. That doesn't say much for his engagement with reading YA, but more with the power of Twilight to garner votes. With 33 reviews, I'm not going to be following or friending him. He just doesn't review enough. I have made friends or follow a lot of people on the list whose reading interest overlap mine in places. They write regularly about their reading, and it makes sense that people respond to that. There are tons of reviewers who never make the list who I think are freaking brilliant, but they often are sporadic in their reviewing, and that's a big component in the lists.
Holy blah blah. I will stop talking now.
I've reviewed Twilight as well; exceptions and aberrations exist, of course. But is it actually controversial to suggest that there are two primary and distinct reading 'cultures' to be found on the all-time 'best reviewers' list? I thought I was discussing something that was already well-known/accepted.
Regarding the 'best reviewers' list, it could also be nice to have a votes-per-review number up there next to each reviewer to give another angle.
:) I'm in the same boat.
Bram wrote: "I've reviewed Twilight as well; exceptions and aberrations exist, of course.
But is it actually controversial to suggest that there are two primary and distinct reading 'cultures' to be found on..."
No, not controversial - totally true. There's a pretty strong divide there, which you can see in who people interact with primarily. (And I love your Twilight review).
Votes per review would be a really interesting metric. Although, GR has put in a lot of metrics that no one uses - like the stats button on your own - or others - profile which is super interesting. It's under the cloud of shelves. Hit the stats button, and you can see your reading by year, and a bunch of other cool stuff, like how often you read book rec'd by a certain individual. I could waste a good morning going through that stuff.
Here's mine:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/stats...
But is it actually controversial to suggest that there are two primary and distinct reading 'cultures' to be found on..."
No, not controversial - totally true. There's a pretty strong divide there, which you can see in who people interact with primarily. (And I love your Twilight review).
Votes per review would be a really interesting metric. Although, GR has put in a lot of metrics that no one uses - like the stats button on your own - or others - profile which is super interesting. It's under the cloud of shelves. Hit the stats button, and you can see your reading by year, and a bunch of other cool stuff, like how often you read book rec'd by a certain individual. I could waste a good morning going through that stuff.
Here's mine:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/stats...
Kat wrote: "I like to think that people 'like' my reviews because I work pretty damn hard to make them interesting and different."Ya nose we laffs ya, Kat.
How's this for perversion?I write next to nothing in the way of reviews (call it a congenital deformity).
And I end up in notable statistics land because of my location (shortly to be replaced with somewhere else I've yet to discover) because the server compares me with whoever is also listed in the same location/on the same server. A pitiful handful of reviews is enough to gain entrance to the holy shrine of reviewing deities because there is no measure of relevance to the location of other reviewers in other countries. (And I'm going to complain to GR about it - grossly inflating my ego like that - they should be jolly well ashamed).
G N wrote: "How's this for perversion?I write next to nothing in the way of reviews (call it a congenital deformity).
And I end up in notable statistics land because of my location (shortly to be replaced w..."
Ha, how'd this end up after my response? Strange. Anyway, I'm still in the same boat.
Ceridwen wrote: "Bram wrote: "I've reviewed Twilight as well; exceptions and aberrations exist, of course. But is it actually controversial to suggest that there are two primary and distinct reading 'cultures' t..."
Whoa, when did this happen? Very cool.
Whoa, when did this happen? Very cool.
It is very cool. I was on a thread of Eccentric Muse's at one point, and she alerted me to this, and then we had a really great convo about statistics which was fun and not nerdy at all. I'll see if I can find it.
It is very cool. I was on a thread of Eccentric Muse's at one point, and she alerted me to this, and then we had a really great convo about statistics which was fun and not nerdy at all. I'll see if I can find it.
Thanks for the clarification, Bram.I thought there were a great deal of reading genres that didn't overlap as well. Historical and contemporary romance, for example. I just don't read them and so don't really read the reviews unless their Zosia's about Fabio's books. In which case I do it just to laugh my ass off!
I think I must be a reverse-vote-whore.I was in the top 25 reviewers when the site first put the list up, and steadily dropped as competition ramped up, soon disappearing entirely. I don't friend people, I rarely vote on the reviews of others, and I self-destructively write long, overly-complicated, referential reviews that appeal only to a small, eccentric minority.
Though, if popularity is measured by the sheer volume of trolls arrayed against the reviewer, I'm doing better than I could have hoped. But then I've put any credence in 'signs of contradiction'.
Keely, I believe I came across one of your reviews once, a Y/A dystopian novel, do you know the one I mean? I'd not read the book and don't think I contributed to the comments thread but found the whole discussion fascinating... the thread was amazingly long and contentious.
It was The Giver, and there are days I wished I'd never reviewed it.The comments are still going strong, but it's often the same things over and over again. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I have gotten some positive feedback from it, just not from most commentators. So, I guess I'll keep it up.
My review of The Road is another hot mess, if you have some time to kill and like watching a train pileup.
Wow, that's humbling. Sometimes it's hard to recall that this community is more than me furiously researching and writing reviews for angry people to tersely disagree with.
Mod
Although I have thought about contesting your views of A Game of Thrones...
I used to be, which is probably why I'm friends with Michael (see, there are benefits to being a vote whore), but I find I don't care so much anymore. Hmmm, I wonder if I'm still in the top 50. Okay maybe I do still care. *Runs off the check.*
"A Game of Thrones"If the comments on that one continue as is, it has a chance to beat The Giver as most pointlessly vitriolic.
I wouldn't mind if you joined in, though I'd understand if you were wary about entering at this juncture. It's not like I consider myself a Martin expert--I didn't even finish the book--but I haven't seen any really stirring refutations of my little collection of observations, yet.
I must say, if I were a vote whore, I'd be thanking the book gods for every troll who comments. Apparently nothing spurs votes like flamers.
That made for some interesting reading, Keely. And by interesting I mean, "holy god, why are they all so angry?"
Mod
...and we have a lot of fun when you have a lot of fun.
Michael said: "I don't think there's only one way to interpret any work of art"It's true, and I'd appreciate the comments if people actually put forth other interpretations.
Ala said: "holy god, why are they all so angry?"
We all care about books, or we wouldn't be here. Books often have emotional connections and for most people, books are part of how they define themselves and their worth. Most of them can't separate my critique of their favorite book from an attack on them.
Since they have internalized the book, any attack on it is also internalized, and so they react defensively and angrily, as if they are trying to defend themselves. That is why they react by insulting me instead of critiquing on my review.
Michael said: "I should probably study your reviews so I can attract more."
Let me know what you find, I'm still not sure why I attract them in such great numbers. I think in addition to panning the book, you have to have a series of passable arguments; that way they can't simply dismiss you.
I'm going to start studying you, Keely. I can't give it away as a troll whore.
Keely wrote: "We all care about books, or we wouldn't be here. Books often have emotional connections and for most people, books are part of how they define themselves and their worth. Most of them can't separate my critique of their favorite book from an attack on them."
I just don't see why people do this, though. You like something? Great! Someone else doesn't like it? KILL THEM!
It's just so idiotic.
This isn't fucking politics people, this is entertainment. No need to get all butthurt because someone has different tastes...
I just don't see why people do this, though. You like something? Great! Someone else doesn't like it? KILL THEM!
It's just so idiotic.
This isn't fucking politics people, this is entertainment. No need to get all butthurt because someone has different tastes...
