A closer look at FROB 3, Part 1

[_Gadianton]

Since I have nothing better to do at the moment, let's turn our attention back 17 years to FROB volume three. I've become interested in the hypothesis that one might predict a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" review by whether or not the work, or eh-hum, game, under review is published by FARMS. In other words, I'd ultimately like to see a mathematician create a model that would help us predict in this manner, "This review of book x, where book x is not published by FARMS, we can predict with a y% probability that the review will say book x sucks". I'm not sure the sample size is large enough yet, we'll have to take other volumes into account, but here is the tally from volume 3:

-One completely inapropriate essay that is not a review of anything.

-Two neutral reviews, not clearly thumbs up or down, and these are Fun for Family Night: Family edition (not FARMS) and The sermon at the Temple...(Welch, FARMS, reviewed by Compton)

-Fifteen big thumbs down (all NOT FARMS published)
-Four big thumbs up, way up (all FARMS published)

Any bets on where this is going? ; )

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is really a stunner:

FARMS doesn't publish manuscripts that people connected with FARMS think are stinkers?

That's simply amazing.

More studies are required, of course, and since Gad has nothing better to do, he's just the guy to do them.

But the working hypothesis has to be, it seems, that FARMS publishes books of which FARMS approves, and that FARMS doesn't publish books of which FARMS disapproves.

This is truly a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics!

[_harmony]

But the working hypothesis has to be, it seems, that FARMS publishes books of which FARMS approves, and that FARMS doesn't publish books of which FARMS disapproves.

This is truly a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics!

I think it's more like FARMS gives a thumbs up review to books FARMS publishes and a thumbs down review to books FARMS doesn't publish.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it's more like FARMS gives a thumbs up review to books FARMS publishes and a thumbs down review to books FARMS doesn't publish.

Let's test that hypothesis, shall we?

For the past several years, the (evil) editor of the FARMS Review has listed his "Editor's Picks" at the conclusion of his introduction to each number of the Review. He gives them one, two, three, or, occasionally, four stars. As a test, I decided to look at those "Editor's Picks" -- they're easily accessible, on line --for the last two complete volumes of the Review, volumes 18 and 19.

In those two volumes, 22 books were listed among the "Editor's Picks."

Of those 22 books, four books received four stars. Of those four, one was published by FARMS and three were not.

Six books received three stars. Two of these were published by FARMS. Four were not.

Of the nine books that received two stars, none were published by FARMS.

Of the three books that received one star, none were published by FARMS.

Thus, of the 22 books recommended as "Editor's Picks" in volumes 18 and 19 of the FARMS Review, three were published by FARMS while nineteen (19) were not.

And, it might be noted, several of those recommended were written by non-Mormons. Just in case somebody's curious.

Since he has nothing better to do, Gad can pursue this line of research further.

[_Daniel Peterson]

here is the tally from volume 3:

-One completely inapropriate essay that is not a review of anything.

-Two neutral reviews, not clearly thumbs up or down, and these are Fun for Family Night: Family edition (not FARMS) and The sermon at the Temple...(Welch, FARMS, reviewed by Compton)

-Fifteen big thumbs down (all NOT FARMS published)
-Four big thumbs up, way up (all FARMS published)

Gad, you loveable rogue, you!

You know that FARMS Review 3 is easily accessible on line, and that people here can easily check your numbers for themselves and see that you're pulling their leg!

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=3&num=1

Any bets on where this is going? ; )

Lemme guess!

It's going to be (LOL!) Another Watershed Moment in the History of Mopologetics?

This stuff is priceless, Gad!

[_Tom]

"Editor's Picks" have appeared in the last thirteen volumes of the FARMS Review. In those thirteen volumes, 157 or so separate items were listed among the Editor's Picks. (I eliminated duplicate ratings but elected to count John Sorenson's Images of Ancient America twice due to two different ratings.)

Overall, of the 157 items selected as "Editor's Picks" in volumes 7-19 of the FARMS Review, thirty (19%) were published by FARMS while 127 (81%) were not.

Of those 157, twelve received four stars (7.6%). Of those twelve, six were published by FARMS (50%) and six were not (50%). Overall, 20% of picked FARMS products received four stars while 4.7% of picked non-FARMS products received four stars.

Forty-seven received three stars (29.9%). Of those forty-seven, eighteen were published by FARMS (38.3%) and twenty-nine were not (61.7%). Overall, 60% of picked FARMS products received three stars while 22.8% of picked non-FARMS products received three stars.

Of the sixty-one that received two stars (38.9%), five were published by FARMS (8.2%) and fifty-six were not (91.8%). Overall, 16.7% of picked FARMS products received two stars while 44.1% of picked non-FARMS items received two stars.

Of the thirty-six that received one star (22.9%), one was published by FARMS (2.78%) and thirty-five were not (97.2%). Overall, 3.3% of picked FARMS products received one star while 27.6% of picked non-FARMS products received one star.

To recap:

Of the thirty picked items published by FARMS, six received four stars (20%), eighteen received three stars (60%), five received two stars (16.7%), and one received one star (3.3%). Thus, twenty-four of the thirty picked FARMS products (80%) received either three or four stars. Six of the thirty (20%) received either two stars or one star.

Of the 127 picked non-FARMS products, six received four stars (4.7%), twenty-nine received three stars (22.8%), one received a rating of **(*) (.78%), fifty-six received two stars (44.1%), and thirty-five received one star (27.6%). Thus, ninety-one of the 127 picked non-FARMS products (71.7%) received either two stars or one star. Thirty-five of the 127 picked non-FARMS products (27.6%) received either three or four stars.

As Dr. Peterson once wrote, "Book reviewing...is a rather idiosyncratic activity, and readers would do well to bear in mind Ambrose Bierce's definition of admiration as 'Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves,' and, thus, to take the recommendations of the current chairman of the FARMS Board of Trustees for what they are worth."

[_Daniel Peterson]

It seems that the claim that we always trash non-FARMS books has been definitively laid to rest.

However, it remains a stunning discovery that people voluntarily associated with FARMS tend to approve, on balance, of what FARMS does.

Just for the record: The editor of the FARMS Review asks people to review things. He doesn't tell them what to say, nor even how many words they have in which to say it. The FARMS Review editor (c'est moi) is very laissez faire in his editorial approach.

[_Gadianton]

Thanks Tom for that fantastic post. After reading that, I think the apologists might be a little more cautious when making their claims.

I did have one question, as most of my familiarity with the FROB has been the first volumes (I only own the first two), how does an "editors pick" line up with "one star"? I just don't get it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks Tom for that fantastic post. After reading that, I think the apologists might be a little more cautious when making their claims.

A little more cautious about making what claims?

I did have one question, as most of my familiarity with the FROB has been the first volumes (I only own the first two), how does an "editors pick" line up with "one star"? I just don't get it.

For an expert on the Review, you don't seem to know much. (How very, very Scartchian!)

Most items reviewed don't get any star.

My explanation of how the "Editor's Picks" work has been reprinted in every issue of the Review in which "Editor's Picks" have appeared, and they're all on line.

Man. I marvel at how well you've got the Scartch schtick down! The enormous ratio of judgment to knowledge is precisely on target.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks Tom for that fantastic post. After reading that, I think the apologists might be a little more cautious when making their claims.

I did have one question, as most of my familiarity with the FROB has been the first volumes (I only own the first two), how does an "editors pick" line up with "one star"? I just don't get it.

I'm starting to wonder if Shankar Vedantam really was on to something in his recent Washington Post article "The Power of Political Misinformation" in which he said:

As the presidential campaign heats up, intense efforts are underway to debunk rumors and misinformation. Nearly all these efforts rest on the assumption that good information is the antidote to misinformation.

But a series of new experiments show that misinformation can exercise a ghostly influence on people's minds after it has been debunked -- even among people who recognize it as misinformation. In some cases, correcting misinformation serves to increase the power of bad information.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 75_pf.html