[vova_hn2]

> it's just like 5 people doing most of it

I understand that finding technical/mathematical solutions to social problems is usually pointless, but still...

What if we have, like, a lot of reviewers.

Each reviewer gets n books randomly assigned to them.

n is picked in a way that allows each reviewer to thoroughly read each of them without dropping it in the middle for bullshit reasons.

Each reviewer ranks n books assigned to them, then we use an Elo-like algorithm to produce the final ratings and pick a winner.

This would eliminate most of the randomness/unfairness described in the article.

Of course, reviewers wouldn't like it, because it would significantly reduce their power and people never give it away willingly.

[vintermann]

Aggregating preferences isn't easy. Are you sure you wouldn't get a book which is agreeable to almost anyone but not particularly exciting? This might work for e.g awards for the most important non fiction book, but for fiction, I'd rather try a book someone is excited about.