'Best of' Lists Are the Worst (theoutline.com)
Ann-Derrick Gaillot, a writer at The Outline, shares thoughts on listicles about best products in a genre. From the article: National websites with armies of writers are churning out best lists left and right, motivated by affiliate advertising more than the desire to share an opinion. Thanks to them all, I've gotten to try all the bests: just-ok restaurants, ineffective beauty products, slippers I guard with my life. [...] Articles claiming that something is the "best" should be rare, eyed with suspicion by the ever suspicious consumer. But they're not. I would have probably been alarmed to not find at least one article telling me where to find the best desk (wherever it still is). But with the race to find the best at the heart of so much media we consume today, such articles can only be trusted if they come from an established outlet with legitimacy, the same institutions that are slow and struggle to add marginalized people to their ranks.
Here is our best list of reasons why best of lists are the worst!
Many of these lists are simply paid advertising in disguise. Fake news, so to speak.
The problem is that doing an ACTUAL best-of list is time consuming, difficult, and above all expensive.
Wirecutter is an incredible site, because they are one of the few that actually does proper analysis of the things they are comparing. Think about how expensive and time consuming it is for a site to buy a bunch of the same type of product and actually draw meaningful conclusions from using a dozen of them side by side.
Things I hate:
1. Graffiti
2. Irony
3. Lists
Youtube has been infested with this kind of videos for years. Great job stating the obvious!
Okay, so a lot of best "X" lists are crap. But surely some are good. Does anybody have a list of the best best lists?
"Best 10 politicians"
"Best 10 Kardashians"
"Best 10 species of bedbug"
The lists that usually appear at year's end can be classified as lazy journalism. They predated blogs (whose authors think they serve a purpose...
Whenever I'm on YouTube it's only a matter of time before my related videos get me to some kind of list. It always sucks. It's the signal to turn back or quit and do something else; but I can see how people get sucked in. The siren song of best this/that at the end... I usually catch myself; but I'm older and have had years of experience waiting for the red caboose at the end of literal trains (when they actually still had them) and the "no. 1 song" at the end of those holiday count-downs on the radio (always Stairway to Heaven. Always disappointing). These lists... theyr'e just the 21st century train of boredom; but we don't have to stand here at the crossing gates looking like idiots. There are so many other choices now.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
But with the race to find the best at the heart of so much media we consume today, such articles can only be trusted if they come from an established outlet with legitimacy, the same institutions that are slow and struggle to add marginalized people to their ranks.
Translation:
You can only trust a "best of" list if it comes from a publisher that you can trust and that is slow and struggles to hire marginalized people?
What the fuck? What is this shit? This is pure, meaningless nonsense!
Year of Linux on the desktop
I'd like to think, the /. editors placing this truism on the front page were also motivated by something tangibly rewarding. It is too depressing to think, they sincerely believed it worth our attention...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Top 10 things which make good Beowulf Clusters
The the West, we are slaves to the idea of the instant result, the quick-fix, and the "best" something or other.
It's perverted, and creates maladies in the minds of those who pursue them. Diseases of short attention span, the inability to wait before making a decision, fear of making mistakes, pridefulness, and all while absolving oneself of as much personal responsibility as one can get away with.
How did we get here? Can someone make a list? My time is valuable.
Depending on what you're talking about, people will likely use very different definitions of "best." Forget about "best." What is the metric that you use to define one item as being "better" than another?
Consider comparing apples to oranges. Which is best? Do you mean which tastes better (according to who), which has more vitamins (which vitamins), which is the better value for the cost, which lasts longer, which is easier to grow. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.
Without a well defined metric, saying something is the best is pretty much meaningless.
The summary explains exactly the value that scientific publishers bring to their field. There have been many discussions on Slashdot about scientific publishers, with most views on the negative side. Given the obscene profits and lack of remuneration to reviewers, I am agreed that change is necessary in terms of cost structure. But, many times Open Access advocates miss the value that an established publisher brings to the process of getting a scientific paper published: quality filtering. If you see a paper in Nature, Science, etc., you are reasonably assured that it has gone through high-quality peer review, and has been properly vetted (yes, there are rare exceptions; they do not invalidate the fundamental observation ... see the words "reasonably assured"). When the publisher-cum-filter is eliminated, as happens with the so-called predatory publishers who put anything and everything out as long as the author is willing to cough up a few dollars, quality suffers greatly. How seriously are you going to take a paper that was published in International Open Review Biomolecular Recipes versus one in Cell?
The summary is making the same argument with respect to best-of lists. They "can only be trusted if they come from an established outlet with legitimacy." Which is to say, some entity has vouched for the value of the content by staking some small part of their valuable reputation on promoting it. And their valuable reputation has been built up only by many years of providing content that has bee judged by the public to be high quality. It's a positive feedback cycle.
But, eliminate the established outlet acting as a filter, and you get unmitigated drivel, whether it be best-of lists or scientific papers.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
>Top 10 things which make good Beowulf Clusters
Top ten things to do with hot grits
Was there a point hidden somewhere in that rant that I missed?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Fast nodes, fast innterconnects, lots of memmory, lots of fast shated stottage damn that is just 4 oh well It will not be my firs fail
worst things:
1. lists of "best" stories "worth publishing" on slashdot
2. lists of "best" comments "as judged by users" on slashdot
I like best-of lists, as long as they don't claim to be "curated" somehow.
I'm adding it to my list.
+5 here we come!
creimer's trolls - they're a bitter lot
don't forget text editors
Try owning linux some time and see if you can find the best of anything.
I wanted a program to do backups, and went to google to see if there was one or two favorites to choose from.
The first page of results lists "14 outstanding backup utilities for linux", "10 best linux backup solutions", "10 outstanding backup utilities", "34 best free linux backup" (wtf?), and "5 awesome open source backup software for linux".
None of these sites has the programs sorted in the same order, so... which one is the best? Which are the 3 most popular?
It's not clear that there can be "34 best" of anything, and once you get that far down the list it simply becomes "a list of all backup programs", with no realistic way to choose.
Next I'm going to implement a web page on a Raspberry pi - I'll start with a google search for "top open source web server". and see what's popular...
What the hell kinda first name is that !? ... Tg/Hermaphrodite/Both ?
A female name and a male name, separated by a hyphen
Worst of lists are the best!
1) First Post ...?
2) best apps for appers who love to app about best apper apps
3)
4) PROFIT!
When I'm looking for advice on some product or whatever, I look at a few lists. It's fairly common to find several list sites with the same (identical verbatim) reviews and order for the products on any number of lists, and I discount these both because they are not unique and because the reviews are not unique, and often actually boilerplate.
It's hard to judge reputation, but some sites have earned my interest. Some are pure advertising, and probably paid.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
don't forget text editors
vi is the only text editor.
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
I would have thought everybody knew those lists were nothing more than awful clickbait. How did such idiocy end up on /. ?
Best X places to dive are always X places that gave me free diving to be on this list.
Most of the lists or videos that name X best things in the world, they do that as click bait. I prefer review round-ups.
...from the internet, and acts on it?
These lists are *opinions* at best. Disappointment should be at yourself for even taking these seriously.
What a waste of an article.
I tend to rant.
Apps! ...
Luddites
Systemd
Windows 10
Pepperidge farm remembers
Frosty piss
Apk hosts
In Soviet Russia...
Didn't read TFA
It's unavoidable because what is "best" depends on what your needs are, and that varies from person to person.
Golden Girls
This ain't it.
Bingo. Google (YouTube) has a major weakness for "Top N ___" or "N Things That ___". It is a search engine algorithm exploit (optimization) that people are using. It will not stop until Google fixes their code. Once you click through on one, that is it. You are in the integer in the title search bubble.
Using DuckDuckGo helps avoid this problem. While on YouTube, if I have a moment of weakness and want to watch one of these, I open it in an incognito window so that it does not permanently pollute my recommended list.
Google loves lists way too much. The best way to avoid this problem is to not use Google.
Seriously -- this needed a study? The whole purpose of these lists is to be Click Bait and drive ad revenue to the web site.
oh wait - the author created an article referencing something stupid to drive clicks to her web site. How very meta !!!
So is... "This is Windows calling. You're computer has virus" Best MS tech support ever. Now my $10k audio LAN cable delivers 2Gbps audio to my K-Mart speakers from my protected Windows 10 computer.
This is why you should never visit Seattle, or go to any of the cool restaurants I go to.
They're on Best Of lists.
Just stay away so I can keep getting great tables.
Thanks!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Damn, I'm old. I remember when a comment like that would guarantee an intense flamewar that would overtake the actual topic at hand.
See the worst here: http://www.al.com/birmingham/
Crap like:
-20 zip codes with the most expensive houses
-Top 25 defensive backs in the past 25 years
-Private school tuition: A sampling of costs at 20 more Alabama schools
Before the weekend they will usually have some crap like "Ten things to do in Birmingham this weekend", and they're constantly having lists of the top BBQ joints, 10 best players ever at ______ school, top 15 most expensive restaurants in ______ county, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.
These lists are usually presented as slideshows requiring you to click through the list, and that's the whole point - MORE clicks.
It's not news. It's not even fake news. It's utter crap and a way for them to make a few bucks.
Most of those lists (written or in video format) involve so little research, let alone actual use of any of the listed items... at best they will compare "feature lists" or paper specs... collectively they are a form of spam :-/
It's not "fake news," it's just "shit news." There's a difference. Best-of lists are about advertising, but the "articles" are not ads. They're just a list that was somehow made, whether pulled out of someone's ass, voted on by readers or their robots, or sincerely and carefully researched. (Seriously, each of those can happen, even the last one! I am not making that up!)
It's a pretext to approach all businesses related to the topic. "We're going to have an issue about the best fidget spinner buttplugs. Would you like to buy an ad?"
And then once the winners are decided (which, seriously, might not have anything to do with who bought an ad) you approach or re-approach the winners. Again: "Would you like to buy an ad?"
And the ads do get sold. That is why best-of lists exist. They are ad sales opportunities, and good ones for the publication. They aren't ads in themselves, but they're going to be surrounded by ads.
[I know I had to use the word "seriously" twice above, because what I'm saying is hard to believe. But it's true. I work in this business and every penny of my paycheck ultimately comes from someone buying an ad. It's less corrupt than you think, because all the real dirt is in plain sight: the ads next to the best-of lists.]
Creimer - he's a fucking moron.
Damn, I'm old. I remember when a comment like that would guarantee an intense flamewar that would overtake the actual topic at hand.
I miss those days. :(
I was hopeing for a good vi VS vim VS emacs VS edlin flamewar.
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
Best Of lists suffer the same fate as restaurants and other consumer stuff. Assuming they are not clickbait or sponsored by someone with a vested interest, popular things must be mediocre. If things are truly exotic and special, they are not going to appeal to the masses. So, they are not going to be selected as "best." High points, sharp edges, and other prominent features must all be worn down to a smooth surface before the majority of people will accept something.