> 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?
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.
The Three Body Problem is beyond bad. It's the softest "Hard" SF I've ever read and when I finally got to the reveal I got really angry. The characters are flat, the story is stupid and the ideas are hackneyed. Even the title is specifically wrong, as there are no 3 body systems referenced anywhere in the book (Trisolaris is a 4 body system, 5 if you count it's moon)
The story starts out promisingly enough with moving scene set during the Cultural Revolution, but quickly loses steam. The initial premise of "the laws of physics are changing" quickly devolves into "magic aliens", probably the least interesting SF tropr there is.
Honestly it's like someone who doesn't like SF tried to write an SF novel. Really makes me question the Hugo award.
Most of the positive reviews I read online seem either fake or like the reader was very unfamiliar with the genre.
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.
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.
> 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?