Best SciFi, Algorithmically Ranked

Not really helpful to anyone looking for a book when many of these are dramatically different. About half of these I loved, and the other half I couldn't turn the first page. The three body problem and ancillary justice were both so hard to get into.

Re: Best SciFi, Algorithmically Ranked

#6

Post by apricot » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 8:26 PM UTC

bitminer wrote: post #2

NK Jemisin...who? Oh. I really need to get back into reading SF.

> NK Jemisin...who?

Boy are you in for a treat.

Re: Best SciFi, Algorithmically Ranked

#7

Post by tdj » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

Grakel wrote: post #5

Not really helpful to anyone looking for a book when many of these are dramatically different. About half of these I loved, and the other half I couldn't turn the first page. The three body problem and ancillary justice were both so hard to get into.

Both of the titles you mention were the type of books that I had to put them down and started reading them again later. For different reasons though. Once the world building clicked, they really shine.

Re: Best SciFi, Algorithmically Ranked

#8

Post by briga » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

I guess the algorithm doesn't know about Stanislaw Lem

Re: Best SciFi, Algorithmically Ranked

#9

Post by GeekyBear » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 10:47 PM UTC

Grakel wrote: post #5

Not really helpful to anyone looking for a book when many of these are dramatically different. About half of these I loved, and the other half I couldn't turn the first page. The three body problem and ancillary justice were both so hard to get into.

Sometimes there are widely beloved books that I never seem to connect with no matter how many times I pick them up, but when I try them in audio-book form I see the appeal.

The Man in the High Castle and Ubik, for example.

I had the same reaction with Ancillary Justice.

Re: Best SciFi, Algorithmically Ranked

#10

Post by webmaven » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 12:27 AM UTC

Hmm...

> Our algorithm scores books based on popularity and critical acclaim (critic reviews + awards). While you may disagree with individual scores or rankings, directionally, our scoring will help you find a new book you love.

> We believe an algorithmic approach is superior to manual book reviews, because it enables us to compare thousands of books using consistent criteria. We eliminate the bias of individual reviews.

That's a valid approach, but I wish there was more information on which awards and critics they're including in their data set (and which are excluded) and how they weight them.

IOW, how many Hugos to a Nebula, Galaxies to a BSFA, or Locuses to a Prometheus?