This is one of the things I like about Wirecutter's format for product recommendations-- in a good Wirecutter review, the "runner up" and "competition" sections are just as informative as their actual pick, because they'll highlight any deficiencies or tradeoffs in the item they picked, and explain why they chose what they did.

I make book lists and this is GREAT advices. From now on I will have an addendum at the bottom that lists ALL the books for that list that were rejected, thank you!

I mean while this is a flippant response, this does highlight something that doesn't really exist at the moment: second order derivative lists.

You make a list and then I prioritise and filter your list.

Making a list of your top 100 books implicitly rejects all other books. Me taking your list of 100 books and rejecting a load with justification gives a lot more information about what I value in the books and, moreover, which of your values I disagree with.

We kind of have this with comment trees but it will often be the case that someone publishes a list (e.g. all of the episodes of Black Mirror in order of preference or all Studio Ghibli films in order of preference) and then the comments will take issue with the inclusion of certain items, exclusion of certain items or the placement of certain items. What you rarely get is the commentator publishing their own version of the list and what you never get is the commentator creating a completely derivative list.

Isn't this a superset of providing your ratings/reviews for books you've read? Like Goodreads?

Minor English correction! You should say: Great advice. (It's an uncountable noun.)

This kind of selection bias applies to everything, e.g. you don't see the news stories media doesn't report on.

> This kind of selection bias applies to everything, e.g. you don't see the news stories media doesn't report on.

Traditional media like TV or newspaper or a YouTube channel, agreed. On some media you (partly) do tho ie. they allow more transparency.

I remember (back in 2002 or so, not sure nowadays) on Indymedia they had an open publishing method. All declined articles were in a recycle bin. Admitted ones were in the newswire, starred ones in middle.

HN has a "new" queue. Everything from there which does not get enough points, does not get reported, as it does not reach the front page (nor page 2).

Either way it is a shitload of work to go through this manually, though.

I agree. Is valuable information see the _rejected_ items.

I make a year list of movies that I personally recommend [1], and that is why I start to add a full list with 1-10 points of all the movies that I watch (the "rejected" or "not recommended" are the 6/10 and below). I think this make the list more interesting and highlight my personal taste.

[1] [redacted]

>Articles are hand selected. Everything that calls my attention and passes the «trivia filter»

I was a little disappointed when I read this. When I read the title, I was hoping for something based on natural language processing summarization, which would aggregate many stories into cohesive chunks.

Just recently I was telling my brother that I cannot ever trust book recommendations from authors, because they never hand out negative reviews.

I understand why they do it, of course, but it saddens me that the people I most want to look to for suggestions are mostly useless.

On that note and all other faults aside you nearly described Apple News' curation process. They hired a large number of experienced editors out of their field to hand-curate their digest listings.

That said, Apple News is anything but "slow news".

Would you use a kinda social network that let you put different media types like articles, books, movies, etc in any List you like like standard(READiNGG or WATCHINGG, etc?) or custom ones you can setup. like a trello board kinda

I read dissenting opinions on Supreme Court cases and have gotten the most insight into possible perspectives.

I would definitely like to see the “dissenting list”, even though in this case it would be by the same person instead of the part of a committee that didnt gain consensus