If you run this again next year, could you please make a statement along the lines of: “You do not need to write a 10,000+ word book review. A review that is just 3,000 words may be perfectly fine.”
I would even further say “Based on the types of books typically reviewed, 5,000 words should be most people’s targets. Brevity is a virtue.” However, the first statement is more neutral.
I've only read 6 of these so far, but I don't understand how the quality is so good. At least three of them rank as some of the best reviews I've ever read. I'll try to read the rest of the reviews before voting but its going to be hard to pick a favourite.
I'm trying to pick my top three, but I'm running into the problem that I didn't keep track of which ones I particularly liked or not. Looking at the posts again I have a vague notion of "oh yeah, I think I read this", but not much beyond that. I should keep notes or something for next time – assuming I remember to do that, either.
I want to softmax the likes on all the posts and then trade based on the output for some free mana, but I'm too lazy. If anyone else wants to try it please share your results.
Just to clarify, are people using "ranked-choice voting" to mean "instant-runoff voting"? My understanding was that the former is any voting method where voters submit ranked preferences and includes borda count, instant runoff, single transferable vote, the ranked pairs condorcet method, and others.
Incidentally I prefer any ranked method to approval voting (which amounts to judging everything either "good" or "bad"; simplistic and unhealthy imo).
I have a question about the prediction market: why not look at it? In general, aren't markets supposed to be looked at? If markets would interfere with this competition, then what's the more general argument for thinking that prediction markets are good for lots of things?
I'd like to see more fiction reviews next year. The audiences for fiction and non-fiction are probably a bit different, so maybe there could be two contests?
1. Extremely high level this year. Could have picked 7 as "the best" by 'objective' criteria. This year I had to go: 'Which did I enjoy most' - 2. Maybe all finalists should get a small premium (300)? The uninitiated might not grant bragging rights to unrewarded runner-ups. - 3. This contest works so well, I would not change the format. Sticking to a book review is a rather helpful constraint - and some pieces showed: not much of a constraint; some mentioning several books, even several authors, some not much reviewing the book but the field - and if one is intrigued, one has a book to dig deeper into (and usu. one that got discussed in expert-circles). 4. If a loooong piece is not too long to make it to the finalists, it is: not too long. If too few vote the 10k word reviews as the winner, that vote is votum enough for authors to learn from. The educated mind - I do feel sorry for not voting for it. But it educated my mind. Somewhat. During the week it took to read. ;)
I looked at them again to refresh my memory, and oof, the third book's arguments that machines will never ever be generally intellegent because complex things cannot be represented mathematically do not stand up well in September 2023.
(You might still vote for the summary because reviewing a book is not the same as agreeing with it)
Instead of voting for one’s favorite, I’d like to see a “which books did you buy and read” question. I think on some level a book review has failed if nobody is actually interested in the book afterwards
I think the reviews this year didn't have as much of a sense of 'knock off version of scott's writing style without the wit or insight' that many reviews in previous years had.
If you run this again next year, could you please make a statement along the lines of: “You do not need to write a 10,000+ word book review. A review that is just 3,000 words may be perfectly fine.”
I would even further say “Based on the types of books typically reviewed, 5,000 words should be most people’s targets. Brevity is a virtue.” However, the first statement is more neutral.
This is the hardest book review yet, I kept thinking I had my choice but every review was really amazing this year
I've only read 6 of these so far, but I don't understand how the quality is so good. At least three of them rank as some of the best reviews I've ever read. I'll try to read the rest of the reviews before voting but its going to be hard to pick a favourite.
Njal Saga link points to the wrong post.
The link for Njal's Saga goes to Man's Search for Meaning instead.
I'm trying to pick my top three, but I'm running into the problem that I didn't keep track of which ones I particularly liked or not. Looking at the posts again I have a vague notion of "oh yeah, I think I read this", but not much beyond that. I should keep notes or something for next time – assuming I remember to do that, either.
I want to softmax the likes on all the posts and then trade based on the output for some free mana, but I'm too lazy. If anyone else wants to try it please share your results.
Tough choices. Now I have to ask myself if I want to skim these all again.
I just don't have strong enough preferences between them to only choose 3. I'll let everyone else decide who gets the official title
I loved it, but I’m sort of afraid Njal’s Saga will win and next year there will be a slew of imitators of the multimedia Phoenix Wright aspect of it.
The book review is Awesome! (if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
I had no problem picking 1,2,3... my number 1 finished near the bottom, but 2 and 3 near the top.
I am a bit surprised by the prediction market results
Just to clarify, are people using "ranked-choice voting" to mean "instant-runoff voting"? My understanding was that the former is any voting method where voters submit ranked preferences and includes borda count, instant runoff, single transferable vote, the ranked pairs condorcet method, and others.
Incidentally I prefer any ranked method to approval voting (which amounts to judging everything either "good" or "bad"; simplistic and unhealthy imo).
Hmm. I feel the need to cast a protest vote of "entries were not up to the standard of previous contests". I didn't really care for most of these.
#7 Safe Enough .
I too loved lots of the reviews this year.
I have a question about the prediction market: why not look at it? In general, aren't markets supposed to be looked at? If markets would interfere with this competition, then what's the more general argument for thinking that prediction markets are good for lots of things?
I'd like to see more fiction reviews next year. The audiences for fiction and non-fiction are probably a bit different, so maybe there could be two contests?
1. Extremely high level this year. Could have picked 7 as "the best" by 'objective' criteria. This year I had to go: 'Which did I enjoy most' - 2. Maybe all finalists should get a small premium (300)? The uninitiated might not grant bragging rights to unrewarded runner-ups. - 3. This contest works so well, I would not change the format. Sticking to a book review is a rather helpful constraint - and some pieces showed: not much of a constraint; some mentioning several books, even several authors, some not much reviewing the book but the field - and if one is intrigued, one has a book to dig deeper into (and usu. one that got discussed in expert-circles). 4. If a loooong piece is not too long to make it to the finalists, it is: not too long. If too few vote the 10k word reviews as the winner, that vote is votum enough for authors to learn from. The educated mind - I do feel sorry for not voting for it. But it educated my mind. Somewhat. During the week it took to read. ;)
Manifold: What does this "market" even mean? (comments stink like reddit-sneer) https://manifold.markets/JustifieduseofFallibilism/scott-alexander-stock-permanent
There should be a side betting market somewhere
I looked at them again to refresh my memory, and oof, the third book's arguments that machines will never ever be generally intellegent because complex things cannot be represented mathematically do not stand up well in September 2023.
(You might still vote for the summary because reviewing a book is not the same as agreeing with it)
Instead of voting for one’s favorite, I’d like to see a “which books did you buy and read” question. I think on some level a book review has failed if nobody is actually interested in the book afterwards
Agreed. I asked for next year honorable mentions checkboxes so I can at least wave at the reviews that didn't quite make it into my top 3.
This is going to take me forever to read! Oh well, starting with number 1... fortunately I'm a huge Jane Jacobs fanboy.
I think the reviews this year didn't have as much of a sense of 'knock off version of scott's writing style without the wit or insight' that many reviews in previous years had.
The prediction market link isn't working for me.
Is this a geofence thing?