[kinghtown]

> Not quite

Goodreads is kind of a weird space which shows that the popular vote is kind of useless. It’s hard to find a good book based on ratings. Everything seems to be either 4+ stars or garbage. The Fault in our Stars probably has a better rating than print copies of Hamlet. Actually, all classics seem to hover around 3.68 stars. Never 2. In fact, I don’t think any books published in the history of the world have a rating less than 3.

Anyways, the language you google in heavily affects recommendations. Searching in general is not a useful way to find anything cool. It’s much better to happen upon a good source of reviews or criticism which align with whatever gets your rocks off and settle for curated entertainment/art.

[DharmaPolice]

Classics get lower scores because they have a more differentiated audience. People are made or feel culturally obligated to read them. So the Grapes of Wrath (3.97) has a lower score than Anarch (4.62) the 15th Gaunt's Ghost novel set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe. This is because the only people who are likely to read the latter are people likely to enjoy it.

Clearly though, different movies and books server different purposes. Is Schindlers List a better movie than Airplane! Sure, but I'm not going to put on the former when I want a few laughs.

[TeMPOraL]

Star ratings have been widely proven to be a total failure. Most people treat them as binary: either something is nice, and gets 5, or is crap, and gets 1. The neutral score for things that are OK tends to be 5, sometimes 4.

This is particularly pronounced whenever there are any consequences attached to the ratings. If you give anything but 5 to your Uber driver, you're risking them losing their job. If you give anything but 5 on an e-commerce platform, the seller may lose a lot of money. 5 being the "neutral" score became normalized.

[Fnoord]

That reminds me about how in Germany a reference for a job must be positive. So it ends up with a spectrum of "he/she worked here" vs "he/she was REALLY good" (in German).

I've come to the (sad) conclusion that review systems are inaccurate, even when well intended. There was likely a moment during their existence where they were accurate. I would guesstimate this moment is generally before it gained momentum. E.g. early days of IMDB, early days of Amazon, and early days of tbat German law mentioned earlier (I don't know the name).

Since Metacritic is an aggregation of paid and amateur reviewers alike, it might very well be more accurate.

[Wowfunhappy]

> Most people treat them as binary: either something is nice, and gets 5, or is crap, and gets 1

I really think GoodReads is the exception to this though. When I look through other people’s ratings I frequently see them using the full spectrum.

Furthermore, it’s very common for written reviews to say that a book really deserves some fractional number of stars, but Goodreads forced them to round.

Of course, the average ratings suck anyway...

[kinghtown]

While I agree with you, it is worth commenting on the idea that a 5 out of 5 Uber ride isn’t quite the same thing as a masterpiece of cinema which someone gives 5 stars to on a platform like Mubi. I always interpreted a perfect Uber ride as clean, safe, no BS. A four star Uber does mean that something was a bit off about the experience whereas a four star movie was still wonderful but not quite earth shattering like A 5 star stone cold classic such as L’Aventura or Battle Royale.

[082349872349872]

Searching in particular works for me. In the old days, if work B referred to work A, one was unlikely to get it unless one was already familiar with A. These days, it's not uncommon for me, in exploring the space around B, to turn up commentary with enough of a search term that allows me to discover A.

Compare linking via epigraph in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24501978

[rhizome]

If you're doing what I do when I do something like that, the problem with that method is that it's extremely time-consuming.