[eatonphil]

On my wishlist is a book site that will also give you top positive and negative reviews for each book from high quality sources like Boston Review or The Atlantic. I like to pair reading a book with what's happened since or other ideas at the time.

I don't always remember to do this though so that's why getting these review recommendations from GoodReads (for example) would be ideal.

For example, parts of Thinking Fast and Slow have widely been discredited and the author has walked back claims. But you wouldn't know that from the book or its popularity.

[joshvm]

After the Why We Sleep fiasco I'd quite like a site which peer reviews all the references in a book (could be crowd sourced wiki-style) individually. And then the book, or each chapter, gets a rating for factual correctness.

[eatonphil]

That is a good point. Also reminds me I'd like a site that lists all the references in a book so I can more easily search them on the computer and not necessarily need to even own the book.

[joshvm]

This is how conventional journal publishing works, so I don't see why this couldn't be implemented for books which provide a bibliography.

[cloverich]

That's a good thought. The next step is going in reverse, selecting the best referenced material and auto generating a quality non-fiction book from it. That's my dream.

[toomuchtodo]

Would Wikipedia not be the best place to do this (an objective evaluation of the literature)? With links deep linking into the book with Open Library (and Internet Archive initiative)?

[vardhanw]

Would you minding pointing to what the fiasco was about. I read the book based on all round positive reviews and recommendations.

[treerock]

I'd guess this

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/12/27/why-we-sle...

[joshvm]

I did too, and it turns out a lot of the claims are either made up (the literature doesn't support the claims, or doesn't seem to exist at all!), potentially harmful or misleading (modified plots to suit the narrative).

In hindsight some of the claims are just weird, like saying you can measure the effect of one bad night's sleep months down the line.

On the whole it got people talking about sleep, which isn't a bad thing. But, the peer review (see sibling posts) only looked at one chapter I think, so God knows what else is wrong.

I don't think anyone is doubting that you should probably get a bit more sleep, try not to blast blue lights in your face and get into a routine. Standard sleep hygiene stuff.

[burkaman]

https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/

[odie88]

There have been a few discussions about it on HN as well, where Alexey Guyzey, author of the criticism linked, joins in on the conversation:

(4 months ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21546850

(1 month ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22419958

[Cenk]

Try https://bookmarks.reviews

[hikarudo]

I've often wished for the same thing. I want to know what's wrong about the book before investing time in it.