The definition of "Excellent"

[RobertJasiek]

Use related arguments instead of meta-discussion starting keywords!

[Kirby]

IMO, the more factual information the reviewer provides, the more useful it is. So if someone says that something is "excellent", adding information about why they believe that it is excellent is, if nothing else, useful to the audience.

However, a review is, by its nature, a summary. As such, sometimes generalized statements end up in reviews. If someone simply says, "This was a good book", it might be reason to buy the book and read it if you trust the person's opinion. The more rationale they have for saying why something is a good book, the more you might be inclined to agree with them (well, if you agree with their rationale).

If you want precisely what the book says, without any generalized statements, then I think you are not looking for a review so much as an excerpt. Excerpts from books are sometimes more useful than reviews, if this is the type of information that you desire.

[TMark]

Many years ago, on rec.games.go, there appeared a troll. Whenever he could, he would divert the discussions or debates into precise definitions of words, to evade the point. Now I agree that Robert is not trying, conciously, to avoid the debate here, but, to my untrained eye, trying to nail jelly to the ceiling by endless discussions of the meanings of particular words, terms and concepts and to control whatever is said in particular fora. As I believe someone said on the subject of jazz, if you need it defined, you don't know what it is. Trying to hijack a discussion of the Oriental concept of thickness and make it fit the definition you have of influence is just part of the problem. I am sorry if this is seen as a personal attack, but it is not. What I like here is the free flow of debate and not a straight-jacket of absolutes.

Best wishes.

[kirkmc]

I totally agree with TMark. I'm quite frankly tired of Robert's annoying posts. I feel sorry for someone who has a mind like his who can never see any gray in the world, only black and white. And I feel it's a big waste of time on this forum as his endless hair-splitting pollutes thread after thread (or even creates new threads, like this one).

As for reviews, I totally agree that a review is a summary. Part of how I earn my living is by writing reviews: of books, music, software, etc. I've probably written and published nearly a thousand reviews. And I've never had a comment that a word like "excellent" was vague or imprecise. People reading reviews know what they will be seeing in reviews, and they don't dissect them word by word. They also know that reviews are subjective, and that they may not agree with everything the reviewer says. For those who can't understand such concepts, life must be very difficult reading reviews anywhere.

[daal]

While Robert does have a stubborn streak, I believe that he splits hairs not for the sake of it, but rather because he feels that the distinctions he goes on and on about are in fact important.

In this case, I understand Robert's point to be that if we give the highest rank (excellent) to everything we like, then after a while this rank will become deflated and lose it's meaning. How then will we be able to say that something (for example Robert's next book) is truly excellent?

One way, which I suspect Robert yearns for, would be to have a set of standards or criteria for each rating. If you look at Robert's book ratings, you see that he has implemented the following method:

For less confusion now I use a simplified rating scale with the following values:
++ very good
+ in between average and very good
o average
- in between very bad and average
-- very bad

Rank Improvement is after reading once. Most books qualify as - or -- because they are considerably away from ++ books.

Topic Coverage refers to covering all 9p knowledge. Thus most books qualify as --, which is harsh but necessary:)

Aims' Achievement generously assumes the author to have intended the teaching result. So many books should have + or ++.

As far as a numerical rating system goes, this one tells us more about what the reviewer thinks the buyer will get for his money than does a 1-5 scale.

On the other hand, a reviewer is not typically limited to 5 words, and when he writes for example that a book is in his opinion "excellent," then we should assume that this is what he means.

[RobertJasiek]

Not surprisingly, I disagree with quite something of what you, TMark and kirkmc, say. I am glad though that unfriendly "Troll!" crying is replaced by friendly exchange of arguments.

[John Fairbairn]

I don't consider calling someone a troll an ad hominem attack, unless you mean it in the fairy story sense of ugly troll.

But I don't regard Robert as a troll anyway (jb certainly was). It is easy to see that his method of discourse can be irritating, and maybe troll-like to some people, but the real problem is simply that it is misguided. By ignoring the more usual methods of discourse he is making it hard for other people to be receptive to his opinions. That is unfortunate because he clearly has a lot to contribute. Most of us make concessions to other people when we talk to them, such as treating your boss as the fount of wisdom when you know he's really talking through his other end. I don't think Robert has ever made any concession here, and that creates a hard-edged impression which the reader has to work hard to overcome. Not everyone wants to make the effort in a light-hearted forum. I suspect most of us here feel that on L19 we are meant to be relaxing in the common room, not working in the research lab.

One big plus point for Robert, in my book, for which I forgive a lot, is that he doesn't hide behind a pseudonym.

[RobertJasiek]

I don't think Robert has ever made any concession here.

You just didn't notice.

[John Fairbairn]

You just didn't notice.

Making this sort of comment invites the mathematical QED.

And something's a bit pointless if it's not noticeable.

[hyperpape]

@hanekomu Moderators moved this thread from John Fairbairn's review, because there it was off topic.

[Joaz Banbeck]

[admin]
Considering all the ad hominems and trolling and accusations of trolling, I think that this might be an excellect time to lock this thread. Or maybe we could all just abandon it.
[/admin]

[deja]

I'm moving my post to its own thread...

Deja

[John Fairbairn]

deja, I accept all of that. But that doesn't stop me respecting a person more when he makes an assertive statement under his own name, no more than respect means I believe his statement. It's not the case that I necessarily disrespect those who use pseudonyms, but I can never shake off all doubts when the tempertature rises. For some, the price of anonymity may be moderation.

I don't wish to imply that it's much of a problem here.

[deja]

deja, I accept all of that. But that doesn't stop me respecting a person more when he makes an assertive statement under his own name, no more than respect means I believe his statement. It's not the case that I necessarily disrespect those who use pseudonyms, but I can never shake off all doubts when the tempertature rises. For some, the price of anonymity may be moderation.

I don't wish to imply that it's much of a problem here.

All good points, John. My apologies for moving my post. I had second thoughts on its placement and started a new thread. Now I'm having second thoughts on moving it...

[HermanHiddema]

I don't think Robert has ever made any concession here.

You just didn't notice.

Do you have an example?