Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
hi simon,
you 'favorites' idea is not that different from what i suggested, in finding a good author and looking at her recommendations. also 'favorites' sometimes is just 'friends.'
the problem is, this method assumes you've found a good author and know they're good. this is the old bootstrap problem that arises in judging experts: how do you know if you've got a good dr., in dr A. well go to a recognized 'good dr',B, and see if A's diagnosis agrees with B's. but of course the 'recognized "good dr"' may be dr. phil., so....
we all manage a bit of bootstrapping, though, with errors along the way.
i've often thought that lit should have some authors' rating scheme: by some criterion, identify 'authors'; for example, use 10 stories at lit as a criterion. once you have 10 stories, you get to make an 'author's' vote on any story you read; and for each story, the votes of all authors are tabulated separately.
you 'favorites' idea is not that different from what i suggested, in finding a good author and looking at her recommendations. also 'favorites' sometimes is just 'friends.'
the problem is, this method assumes you've found a good author and know they're good. this is the old bootstrap problem that arises in judging experts: how do you know if you've got a good dr., in dr A. well go to a recognized 'good dr',B, and see if A's diagnosis agrees with B's. but of course the 'recognized "good dr"' may be dr. phil., so....
we all manage a bit of bootstrapping, though, with errors along the way.
i've often thought that lit should have some authors' rating scheme: by some criterion, identify 'authors'; for example, use 10 stories at lit as a criterion. once you have 10 stories, you get to make an 'author's' vote on any story you read; and for each story, the votes of all authors are tabulated separately.
