Seeing as the time is nearing us and everyone either wants a change in the system or sees it as a bullshit time waste, the top 100 vote has to be overhauled this year. Now, what are the main critiques:>It's the same books every year, especially top 20-30s>Not enough people participate for it to have validity>It's overall dumbWell, I can't argue with the last two as they're dependant ot the individual's emotional outlook on the vote and seeing how ineffective last year's system of "vote for whatever and however much you want", the lack of enthusiasm is to be expected. Therefore, here are my propositions on how it shall be conducted this time:1. If we want one collected list, then it will be good to limit the votes and to give them each a point amount, e.g.: 3p, 2p, 1p. To address the problem of always having the same books on the list, here is a method for voting I believe will counteract that: >3 points vote goes to your underrated, underdog, unacknowledged masterpiece. It doesn't have to be your favourite book, but it has to be one you believe is massively overlooked (or closest to it)>2 points go to your favourite. IJ, GR, Ulysses, MD, The Bible, Karamazov all go to the top because they're agreeable, which is because they're fucking good, so there isn't really much to counter that, except implore people to not give them their top vote.>1 point goes to your second favourite, or whatever you feel like has to get that little extra push.But, there is a second problem. Whatever fiction book isn't in the top 100, it's place where it could have gone to is most probably taken up by a philosophy book. Also, the simplest way not to get the same books on top every year is just to forbid voting for them, so:2. Splitting the lists into categories, while cumbersome for the voter and the list maker, is the most effective way to make them more colourful, e.g.:>Fiction, in the three point system I suggested, no philosophical or theological texts and the such>Non-fiction, again a three point system, so it's not just the greeks, the Bible and the manifestos there>Underrated, voting for books in the top 30 (or even lower if you want) of the aggregate list will be forbidden and not accounted.What do you think? I think the cynicism can be cured by work towards a change. And those that keep complaining should just not participate for their own and the others' good.
In short: 1. A system of 3 votes in diminishing point power. 2. Splitting into categorised lists. One or a combination of those two (I'd say 1 is a must and 2 is to be decided by the majority).
What a load of wank. Fuck off
reddit's going to poke fun at this board again so i don't care
>>24849983This sounds reasonable but convoluted. I think that having multiple categories is better than a 3 vote system. People won't follow the rules and will give their biggest vote to their #1 book which in practice means that the Bible and Dosto will just raise to the top again.
>>24850048Don't forget mein Kampf.
>>24850048that is true, but the problem is that if someone has only one vote, they'd feel bad for giving it to an underrated piece just so it heats up there, even if the three vote system may easily be abused. I'm just trying to think of a way for the fiction top 100 to not be just the same stuff. Say someone likes My Family and Other Animals from their childhood and but their easy favourite is GR, if they have only one vote they probably wouldn't give it to the former as it probably wouldn't even get on the list. But if they have multiple options, they would be more inclined.
>>24849983>Industrial Society and its Future instead of the Technological SocietyInto the trash
>>24850065Kek, this anon knows.
>>24849983>peoples favorite books remain the same every year and that's a hecking problem!
>>24850102your kind has been posturing for a decade
If you want to change it, you should run the top 100 vote yourself. Then you can whatever you want.
>>24850102As if you guys read. I like Moby dick but top 5 is abit much
Also, we should have a top 10 books from 20xx and after or some shit like that so we don't wank to the same classics every year.
>>24850061Men Kampf was never on the list
>>24849983>everyone either wants a change in the systemThere weren't any complains last time>It's the same books every yearA feature. Not a bug.>Not enough people participate for it to have validityThe board has been brigaded by trannime posters and genre fiction niggers. That's as diverse as it gets here.>give them each a point amount, e.g.: 3p, 2pCan't have aggregates. That's how you end up the 5 Dostoevsky's on the top 100 in the first place. Do you people not pay attention?
>>24849983cool chartyou have talentmake moar
>>24850204actually that pic is too small
>>24849983I think having the normal top 100 is fine, but there should be a second top 100 where anons can only submit books that they've read in the past year. It would be interesting to track the changes in the zeitgeist of the board, it would have more variety every year, and would probably foster more discussion overall. It would also have the added benefit of limiting the voting to people who have actually read a book lately.
>>24849983What a load of shit.
>>24849983There's nothing wrong with the top books being the same every year. Newfags need to get it out of their head that it's supposed to be an "objective" list of DA GREATEST BOOKS EVAR!!, when it's merely just a representation of the board's most widely discussed pieces of literature. I know not why one would be so opposed to seeing "the usual suspects" on top of such a list. For a deeper dive, there's been plenty of other charts made over the years. The top books chart should be just that.
>>24850231no one discusses moby dick on the daily
>>24850256No book gets discussed on the daily
>>24850125no, it belongs there. the real problem is that the lists look pretty much the same every year so there's basically no reason to even make them.
>>24850343The lists change subtly each year and over time there are enough books that drop off or are added as to give a meaningful sense of how the board's taste has changed. This is how any culture works -- gradual transformation.
>>24850204It's not mine!
>>24849983thanks for the recommendations anon. i appreciate it ya fucking asshole
>>24850256Your mum discusses my dick on the daily.
>>24850194>There weren't any complains last timeThere was this one autist complaining that he didn't get to do the survey
>>2484998326/100
>>24849983nofuck off
>>24849983These are always rigged to be exactly the same all the time. There's no point. And NO, I am not logging into my Facebook account to cast a vote for a chart on an anonymous image board.
>>24849983If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.
>>24850194>There weren't any complains last timeBlatantly dishonest. The person running it literally scrapped the first attempt and then rigged it because it was trending in a different direction than usual.
>>24849983a top 100 authors poll would be more interesting imo
>>24851147Shut the fuck up
>>24851238No
>>24849983If you want the stagnation to be fixed it would be better to simply create different types of charts. >It's the same books every year, especially top 20-30sThis will always be this way, books aren't being discovered every year that will rival or surpass the classics, dumb critique not worth worrying about in my opinion. People will always have to accept the fact that these charts will always be subjective and will never truly show "the best" works of all time, just what we like the most, at the moment of the vote. Simply create different and more charts ie: "best spanish books", "best books written by women" this sort of thing. But it would have to have that "event" feel to it, like these end of the year ones do; I propose we all create a chart every quarter in the year, or once in the middle of the year and again at the end, it would diversify it and make things more interesting.
>>24849983There's actually 101 books on this list since there's two #15s and then it continues on to 16 instead of 17. I suggest that Catcher in the Rye should be removed because it's fucking garbage, then there will 100 books as intended.
>>24850219Hey guys, just popping back in to say we should really adopt my excellent idea of having a secondary top 100 where you can only submit books you've read this year.
>>24849983>limit the votes and to give them each a point amount, e.g.: 3p, 2p, 1p.This has been done multiple times. Are you really so new that you've only been on this board one single year?Fag
>>24850178It's been on the list multiple times about 5 years in a row until last year when OP blatantly said he wasn't allowing people to vote for it.
>>24849983I think it's not worth worrying about. The list is the top 100, it reflects board culture, by nature it's not going to change dramatically from year to year unless the board changes dramatically. Letting people vote for multiple books, 3 or so, is a good compromise. The vote as you propose it feels a little too convoluted, though I wouldn't be opposed to having different lists of categories for the year too, underrated especially, it wouldn't be hard to bundle them into the google form.
>>24849983I remember reading a reddit post titled "4chans top 100 books," and there were foids in the comments that were surprised that Shelley and Bronte and Woolf were on the list. Like we are supposed to be super sexist freaks that would exclude female authors out of spite. SURELY that's not the case though.
>>24851933It's not the case, although Woolf should be excluded by virtue of not being a good writer.
>>24851234This. Having authors like Tolstoy and Pynchon and Bolano take up 3 slots each reduces the available information and reach. After all, the point of these top 100s is to help readers find quality books.
>>24851938Either poll the board's 100 favorite authors and favorite book by each author, or poll the board's 100 favorite books and cull duplicate authors.
