- December 16th, 2009
- 2 Comments »
- linkfest
Wednesday linkfest
Here are this week’s links:
- College student brings typewriter to lecture hall – Seems legit and not staged – the professor eventually asks him to stop.
- A better rating system – 5 point scales are the standard on yelp, amazon and elsewhere. Interesting to think if there’s a better way to do this.
If you liked this post, you'll love Mindfire: Big Ideas for Curious Minds, a new best-of collection of Berkun's famous essays and posts from 2000-2011.
Buy now on Amazon.com $8.69 (print / kindle), Barnes & Noble, & iBookstore.
Like this? There's more - Free monthly email
Get the most popular posts each month delivered to your inbox. No hassle, no tricks. (privacy policy)
Subscribe
About Scott Berkun
I'm the author of three bestselling books.
I write about ideas and how they work.
More about me and what I do here.
Subscribe to this blog
Follow on Twitter
Facebook page
Connect on LinkedIn
Ask a question in email
Scott's Books
- (NEW) Mindfire: Big Ideas for Curious Minds
- The definitive best of collection of provocative essays and entertaining posts from over a decade of great writing, curated into one amazing little book.
- Buy on Amazon / Sample (PDF)
- Confessions of a
Public Speaker - Behind-the-scenes tales from the life of a successful public speaker, teaches how to be a great communicator. Recommended by the WSJ, lifehacker, Wired and more.
- Buy on Amazon / Sample
- The Myths of Innovation
(New Paperback edition) - As discussed on CNBC, MSNBC and NPR, entertains and frees you from the myths of creativity. Teaches patterns & lessons for bringing ideas into the world. Updated edition w/4 new chapters.
- Buy on Amazon / Sample (pdf)
- Making Things Happen
- The bestselling handbook for any project manager, revised and updated, packed with tactics, stories and leadership lessons from the trenches.
- Buy on Amazon
2 thoughts on “Wednesday linkfest”
NIH used to use–I kid you not–a 40 point scale for peer review rating of grant application: from 1.0 to 5.0 in increments of 0.1 (with 1.0 the best). Not surprisingly, given the cognitive impossibility of discriminating that many levels of merit, reviewers basically only used 9 levels at the top, from 1.1-1.9, with anything scored worse than 1.9 being considered undifferentiated horrible crap and 1.0 being considered unattainable perfection.
After years of exhorting peer reviewers to “spread your scores” outside this narrow fraction of the full scoring range, NIH spent a fuckton of money on a revamping of the peer review scoring system. One of the major innovations was to adopt a 1-9 scoring system with only whole numbers allowed. BRILLIANT!
Mike: Great story. Thanks for sharing.
It could have been worse I suppose. They could have argued the solution was a 90 point scale :)
And also, kudos for defining a new unit of measure – the fuckton.