- Use promo code PRIMEBOOKS18 to save $5.00 when you spend $20.00 or more on Books offered by Amazon.com. Enter code PRIMEBOOKS18 at checkout. Here's how (restrictions apply)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Who's Bigger?: Where Historical Figures Really Rank 1st Edition
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
See the Best Books of 2018 So Far
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for the best books of the year so far in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Customers who bought this item also bought
Special offers and product promotions
"Skiena and Ward provide a numerical ranking for the every Wikipedia resident who's ever lived. What a great idea! This book is a guaranteed argument-starter. I found something to argue with on nearly every page."
Andrew Gelman, author of Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do
"Absolutely groundbreaking: the first fullscale, data driven undertaking to weigh the historical and cultural impact of persons. This work injects a much needed dose of quantitative rigor into the field of history itself. How do the greatest legacies of yesteryear stack up, not only against one another, but against the power of today's celebrity royalty? This thorough treatment illuminates, validates, and even augments history as a discipline."
Eric Siegel, PhD, founder, Predictive Analytics World and author, Predictive Analytics: The Power to Predict Who Will Click, Buy, Lie, or Die
"This is all fun: reputational face-offs are great entertainment. And, shrewdly, Skiena and Ward have an app. More seriously, historians will put quantitative analysis to good use - and their model may help historiographers grapple with Wikipedia."
"I confess to simply liking the book. I still do not care about the great order of things; nonetheless, I very much appreciate a huge amount of fascinating detail that the book makes available at one's fingertips, and the orderly manner in which it does that."
Alex Bogomolny, MAA Reviews
"... the authors' enthusiasm and sense of play are infectious."
Cass Sunstein, The New Republic
In this fascinating book, Steve Skiena and Charles Ward bring quantitative analysis to bear on ranking and comparing historical reputations by aggregating the traces of millions of opinions, just as Google ranks webpages. They present rankings of more than one thousand of history's most significant people in science, politics, entertainment, and all areas of human endeavor.
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
They explain their processes and calculation very well and then provide comparisons with "experts" and "Top 100" lists, etc. to validate that what they measure is actually doing the job. Then they delve into literally scores of categories to compare the most significant figures. Was Thomas Edison more significant than Alexander Graham Bell or Eli Whitney? Who was the most significant world leader between the world wars? Which King or Pope had the most long-term significance?
They do admit that the data in Anglo-centric, all of the data is in English, and they have made a correction for recency. All in all it is fascinating to wander through their tables and graphs and see where my personal favorites fell.
One criticism I have is that there is really too much data and too many categories and too many comparisons. It would have been better to focus in more depth on fewer categories and dive deeper into the data, leaving the more esoteric areas to another volume or to the internet (they have a very nice companion website).
For everyone interested in history and interested in numerical comparisons (for any area - baseball, business, the arts, etc.) the book is highly recommended.
The Time article explains how the study was conducted:
"When we set out to rank the significance of historical figures, we decided to not approach the project the way historians might, through a principled assessment of their individual achievements. Instead, we evaluated each person by aggregating millions of traces of opinions into a computational data-centric analysis. We ranked historical figures just as Google ranks web pages, by integrating a diverse set of measurements about their reputation into a single consensus value."
"Historically significant figures leave statistical evidence of their presence behind, if one knows where to look for it, and we used several data sources to fuel our ranking algorithms, including Wikipedia, scanned books and Google n-grams"
"...we adjusted for the fact that today's stars will fade from living memory over the next several generations... By analyzing traces left in millions of scanned books, we can measure just how fast this decay occurs, and correct for it..."
"Since we analyzed the English Wikipedia, we admittedly measured the interests and judgments of primarily the Western, English-speaking community... Our algorithms also don't include many women at the very top... This is at least partially due to women being underrepresented in Wikipedia".
The authors then dissect the study results and examine how individuals in many different fields and pursuits were ranked - Part II of the book examines American political figures, modern world leaders, individuals in science and technology, religion and philosophy, sports and the arts.
And here is where I almost immediately found an error, leaving some doubt in my mind regarding the rigor and accuracy of the work the authors have presented.
In Chapter 14, the authors present a tabulation of the "most significant classical composers", stating that "19 rank among the most 500 significant figures in history".
Except -- they have overlooked two composers at least - from the top 100, Richard Wagner is at #62 on the list and Pyotr Il'yich Tchaikovsky is at #63. If the full listing of 500 was examined then how many more composers may have also been omitted? And I haven't examined any of the other tabulations to determine whether or not other omissions may have been made in those specific listings.
This is unfortunate. The study is fascinating and perhaps ground-breaking. But the authors need to step back and carefully examine the conclusions that they are presenting. If this reviewer has been able to catch a fairly obvious error so quickly, then it suggests that others may be present as well. Once these are fixed, the book will be fully deserving of 5 stars.
But in truth, the more things change the more they remain the same.
The reason is that the data used is from Wikipedia, and it all really just distills down to people's opinions once again. The number of hits, the links and the length and contents of articles are all reflections of someone's opinion when you come right down to it. True the authors approach the data from multiple sides so as to come up with what they feel is a truer picture of importance, but that really is just their opinion, and biases, being factored into the equation.
Once they explain their methodology they then splice and dice the results, generating numerous lists, no doubt with the intent of creating interest and maybe even controversy, but I found it all rather tiresome and tedious, and the problem is that because it is all so quantified it is like studying a spreadsheet- its only about the numbers.
I much prefer a book like The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History by Michael H. Hart which is a qualitative comparison reflecting one man's opinion. I may not agree with everything written , but it's interesting to read about each person's life and why he or she was rated as they were. It is not objective or scientific but it is interesting- something this book woefully is not.
Most recent customer reviews
The numbers are based on hits on Wikipedia and Google.Read more