Websites ( NOT BOOKS ! ) - My Favourites :

  • NASA: Picture of the Day
  • Daily picture archives of fabulous astronomy pictures going back to 1995 - this is AWESOME ! It took me 18 months to flick through the complete archives - it is now my homepage. &nbsp I will occasionally save a picture to my PC and use it as a background on my desktop.
  • Listology
    This is for you if you like lists (books, films, TV etc.). &nbsp I do.
  • Health Products: Neways
  • Use safe products from Neways. &nbsp Replace those toxic chemicals in your toothpaste, shampoo, shower gel, cosmetics, talc, deoderant, household cleaners etc. &nbsp
  • UK Gigs
    I recently spotted on the internet an old favourite of mine (Stan Webb's Chicken Shack) gigging within a short drive of my home, and decided to go along to watch. It was great. I have since caught a few other old favourites (Peter Hammill, John Cale, Blue Oyster Cult) plus a few others (Wishbone Ash, Heather Nova, Cara Dillon, Juliet Turner, the cavern Beatles), and have a hankering to see more. This site gives me an idea what's on around the country and who's touring.
  • the hunger site
  • Every 3.6 seconds someone in the world dies of hunger, and 75% of them are children - 200,000 each week (every week). &nbsp Click on this site and each of the site sponsors will donate 1/4 cup of staple food to a hungry person - at no cost to you. &nbsp Weekly, this site adds to over 200 metric tons of food donated weekly to the United Nations World Food Programme, and it costs you nothing.
  • &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp SUPPORT THE CAUSE ! &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp See a list of similar sites below.
  • the child health site
  • the breast cancer site
  • the rainforest site
  • the animal rescue site
    This is great to read the summaries and reviews from members of the public of books, movies and audio CDs. But please do not give too much credence to the reviews, because people tend towards giving reviews of items they particularly like, so only a few of the reviews can be deemed impartial. I also buy from here, but generally review the summaries and reviews at the USA website (there are more of them), then buy from
    See above.
    This is a great place to buy books and similar items. I will usually buy paperback books, and if it goes onto my list of favourites, I will seek out a good hardback version to keep for the future - a quality version from Easton Press or Heritage books or Folio. Sometimes I just buy a book because it looks interesting but is cheap, or seems a good value version of a classic that I do not own and have not yet read. As a classic it should perhaps be on my list of books to read, but is not because I do not own a copy.
    See above.
  • - - the _
  • professor - -

hmmmm, not sure you should admit you think being addicted to listology is "sad" to this crowd...

maybe other folks would think so, but i personally could think of sadder ways to spend my time. ;)

I'm here, aren't I ?

I'm one of us.

Professor, I've just noticed you are not on Listology's Hall of Fame list. (I was intending to use the list as a shortcut in preference to the Member Directory.) I don't know why you aren't there when many lesser lights are. What's the story, Jim?

Did you mean Rogue's Gallery ?

Do you mean on the "newcomers" side? professor has been around too long to qualify. Or if you mean the "old-timers" side, the other folks on the list have just accurred more responses on their lists, and endorsements (the main drivers of ranking - quantity contributed is a lesser factor). Also the score of the people doing the endorsements/responding factors into the equation. It's too static though, so it's on my "to do" list to scrap it in lieu of something else.

I knew there'd be a reasonable explanation. But it still seems unfair that professor isn't there. There are many names there that don't ring any bells with me. Perhaps the explanation isn't so reasonable after all. I mean, should there be newcomers on a Hall of Fame list at all? To solve the problem, could you put someone on the list who is nominated by three people who are already on it?

I think it would only be unfair if different criteria were scored by different rules. The rules are the same for everybody. As for this:

To solve the problem, could you put someone on the list who is nominated by three people who are already on it?

If I scrap the current approach and go with this, how does the first person get on the list? :-)

I do intend to scrap this and do something else, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it. I'll do my best!

Jim, I wasn't proposing that you scrap the current mechanism and base the new one on my 'rule'. The rule was suggested to accommodate cases of unfairness generated by the current mechanism. Simply having the same rules for everyone does not generate fairness (something I'll write about in my forthcoming article on the philosophy of justice). If justice could be automated we wouldn't need judges. You are judge of fairness at Listology - like it or not - and you can't hand your role of judge over to the mechanism that generates the Hall of Fame list. There will always be special cases that require the deliberation of a human judge; no mechanism can perform the role.

Let me say two things first:

1. Were I hand-picking a "Hall of Fame", professor would be on it.

2. I'm not arguing below. I think it's an interesting problem, so I'm just thinking out loud.

That said...

It's true that justice, in the larger legal sense (as implied by your "we need judges" analogy), can't be automated. But this is because it's too complicated with too many gray areas. Very simple rules can be applied fairly. For example, I don't think you'd find it unfair if the hall of fame were merely an implementation of one of these rules:

1. Users who have created the most content.

2. Users whose content has generated the most discussion.

3. Users who have elicited the most endorsements from other users.

These are all rules that are simple enough for a machine to administer (barring cheating, more on that below), and I don't think you'd object to any of them. Perhaps you'd object to basing the hall of fame on something so simplistic, but it wouldn't be unfair (actually, what I mean is, it would arguably be "least unfair", more on inherent unfairness below), because it's just quantification of something quantifiable.

So why does it become unfair if I just combine some of those rules to do the hall of fame? It's still just tallying quantifiable stuff. You may reasonably respond:

"It's unfair because professor (and presumably others) isn't on there but should be."

While this is subjective and the current implementation is objective, I can't really argue with that. But what it really comes down to is that there's no way to fairly do a hall of fame, so I should just scrap it. Consider the following possible problems:

1. It's all susceptible to cheating, which means there will always have to be a human involved, even for something as simple as "most content created."

2. Many quantifiable rules are subject to the problem of comparing apples to oranges (# of comments for a "review" list vs. # of comments for a "game" list)

3. The nature of the hall of fame itself makes it prone to feedback lock-in (more people view the content of the people in the hall of fame, making it more liking that those people get more comments or whatever, boosting their hall of fame stats).

4. Me hand-picking who belongs is the most unfair of all! Or, if you'd like to argue it's not, it still seems like it's unfair, and I believe would be an even greater source of contention than the current system ("jim doesn't like me" vs. "that stupid set of quantifying rules doesn't like me").

I can't think of a system that doesn't run afoul of any of those problems, so really I should just scrap the hall of fame and not replace it! It's always been a bit of a bone of contention anyway.

Oh, all this started because you wanted one page where you'd have links to all your favorite people on Listology. How 'bout you just bookmark this?

You would not hurt my feelings if you did away with the Hall of Fame.

Just for the record...

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

First, I apologise to professor for any embarrassment my good intentions may be causing.

Secondly, I doubt that anyone would object to a Hall of Fame list hand-picked by you, Jim. That alternative would take care of the first three of the four problems you have listed. The fourth problem is where my suggested solution comes in: make it a rule that anyone can nominate someone who should be on the list, then put the nomination to the vote. One user, one vote, with a reasonable time limit on the poll.

Thirdly, I admit there are several shortcuts lazy bertie could have used to find professor. But that's beside the point, which, somewhat to my own ambarrassment, has become the question of the continued existence of the H of F.

Fourthly, I think it's unfair that, due to geography beyond my control, I usually come in at the tail end of site-shaking storms like this :-D

Firstly, I hope professor's not embarrassed. This all went as far as it did because we agreed he kicks in good stuff!

Secondly, I'm afraid I just don't have time to manage a hand-picked hall of fame (or to oversee any kind of nomination process). And I'd have a very hard time balancing picking folks whose contributions I enjoy personally, vs. picking folks whose contributions are valuable to the community, but who don't share my interests.

Thirdly, I'm glad you brought it up! It certainly pointed to shortcomings in the old approach, and nobody leapt to the defense of the it. Thanks for shaking things up!

Fourthly, yeah, that is unfair. But then again, you get to live in Australia, which seems rather enviable (from my idealized never-been-there perspective).

The irony in which we find ourselves is that being fair vis-a-vis the Hall of Fame would require being unfair to you, Jim. I fully understand and accept your rejection of my less than fully baked suggestion. You have more than enough to do around here, and I really can't fault your generosity.

i do that thing, i read reviews there as well

Can I recommend LibraryThing ( you like lists and books, you'll love it.

I tried but the website seems to be down right now.
Please update this.