n-sf: Rating Systems for N-SF book list

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: John Embree

Here are some methods that were considered when setting up the initial rating system for the N-SF book list:

1. Artistic merit (of the story).
2. Technical merit (of nanotech in the story).
3. Subject Content (of nanotech in the story).

Here are some comments about each item:

1. Traditional review/rating. Basically subjective feelings about if the reviewer liked the plot, characters, writers style, etc...

So far we have handled this by simply pointing to reviews of the n-sf material at other sites. It would be nice to have ratings of this type, but it would be a lot of work and entirely a matter of the reviewers opinion.

2. Rating the technical accuracy of nanotech has not really been

addressed. It would be interesting to see ratings done in this category.

Caution would need to be used in this section, for it seems there is some room even in this category for ambiguity. Why? Because anything short of "Is this within the absolute, fundamental limits of physical law?" leaves the rating system open to interpretation and the reviewers belief systems. Maybe JoSH or someone would like to do this...

3. And then we come to the rating system actually used in the

N-SF list...

   > ------------------------------------------------------------------
   > Rating of nanotech content (not implying good/bad)
   > ------------------------------------------------------------------
   > Four stars  ****     nanotech is the center of the story
   > Three stars  ***     nanotech is a major component of the story
   > Two stars     **     nanotech is a minor component of the story
   >
   > Nanotech may be explicitly or implicitly stated, or be called by
   > different names.  People who have read one of the non-fiction books

This method was selected because it

1. did what I wanted, namely - to identify a reading list with nanotech content, and B) was simple and not subject to (much) interpretation.

Any comments? Maybe the rating system can be enhanced over time. This would depend on participation by interested parties. Method 1 would take some time to do it right, Method 2 would require the right skill set and time to do it.

A rating could look something like this:

Author              Title                 Rating
Stephenson, Neal    Diamond Age, The      A4 T4 C4
					 (Artistic, Technical, Content)

At the very least, we could try and come up with a list of the TOP TEN books on the list and rate them.

Thanks, Tony

>>Subject: Re: n-sf: Correction to N-SF list
>>Sender: owner-n-sf@lucifer.com
>>Content-Length: 761
>>
>>On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Mike Jones wrote:
>>
>>> however, it's nanotech content should be downgraded to a 2. It was
>>> mentioned several times, but had very little to do with the primary
>>> plotline.
>>
>>That isn't a requirement for getting the rating of 4. Queen City Jazz
>>didn't have much to do with Nan, but if I remember correctly it also has a
>>rating of 4. Is there a possibilty that we could restucture the rating
>>system? Including how good the book actually was, and the nanotech
>>content.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Mike Jones
>>> mrjones@hiwaay.net

--
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Anthony S. Napier          EMAIL: anthony.napier@lexis-nexis.com |
| LEXIS-NEXIS  Dayton, Ohio                   VOICE: (513)865-1864 |
| "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."  -Alan Kay |
*------------------------------------------------------------------*

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: John Embree