Thanks for the weigh-in, @m30t. You actually clarified a lot of my own feelings that I was struggling to explain. Yes, I have no problem with people having preferences or favorites. But the terminology needs to be used properly. “Favorite” implies subjectivity; “best” implies objectivity. I am concerned that some people on this site incorrectly equate the two, hence my lack of support for any kind of ranking system beyond personal lists. I maintain my original point that aggregate opinions are not equivalent to an objective truth, and that trying to determine what zoos are “better” or “worse” than others is an exercise removed from reality and which detracts from the work that modern zoos do.
I think some of you are taking this way too seriously. People rank things all the time and there's generally subjectivity involved. This idea is based on college football and basketball rankings, which are of course subjective. Those aren't perfect and neither would this be, but they are fun and generate discussion.
Unfortunately in the world of social media, rankings are seen as a necessary tool to get clicks on your article. If USA Today (or whoever) posted a title like Authorities Weigh In On The Role of the Modern Zoo it would get very few clicks. If they post America's Top Ten Zoos it will get a lot of clicks. I agree this is not the best way to rate zoos and certainly not any way to generate a discussion that is at all comprehensive, but it is the way of the modern world.
I don't think rankings are much of a product of social media or are even a modern phenomenon. People having been comparing and ranking things for a very long time. Best college sports teams, best colleges, best pizza, best athletes, best musicians, etc.
@Arizona Docent first let me acknowledge how much I appreciate you highlighting the "U" I agree that for modern media and social media, such lists and titles are an necessity. Intriguingly, while I still object to the terminology of "top zoo", the title that was used could still be applicable to a detailed discussion/review of zoos by enthusiast as opposed to a public poll (although that would cost them a lot of page views). @Coelacanth18 I concur; aggregate opinions can reflect popularity and perhaps imply a degree of quality, but in no way do they determine anything definitive or objective such as how good a zoo is. @mweb08 respectfully, I disagree with your stance. As has previously been discussed, such lists have the potential to and could be influencing individual decisions on which zoos to visit, which in turn could have negative consequences for lesser regarded zoos. It is my hope then that if individuals wished to compile such a list that they would want to be as upfront and transparent as possible with that list; something not achieved by using terminology such as "best." As you point out, these lists are subjective, so why not be direct and open about that by referring to them as "favourites" or similar. Absolutely comparable lists have existed for a long time with the examples you provided, I would challenge though that simply because something has been done one way for a long time does not mean it is accurate or an ideal path to follow.
I'm rather dumbfounded by the responses by a couple posters. If you don't like rankings, that's fine, but it's really not that big of a deal, and these rankings would presumably be a lot better than the ones like the one this thread is based on. I don't see any reason to be concerned about a bunch of people seeing the thread dedicated to these rankings and then deciding not to visit zoos that aren't ranked. They can already see opinions and individuals rankings of those zoos on here. It's just not that serious.
So I’m guessing you disagreed with my general premise about objectivity/subjectivity? Because otherwise, this statement makes me feel like you kind of missed the overall point I was making... I already explained my reason for why it concerns me. Yes, and my opinion on that depends on the extent to which those opinions and rankings are acknowledged as subjective. However, I think those are different than some “official” ZooChat zoo ranking (please correct me if that’s not an accurate assessment of your proposal). I respectfully disagree. I’m sorry if you feel I’ve been overly critical or fussy about this. I’m not trying to attack your idea, I’m just stating my concerns.
“Favorite implies subjectivity; best implies objectivity." - does it? Use of the English language doesn't recognise so fine a split. People talk now about a science of things like aesthetics and morality, implying there are rules and laws, underlying what people think are purely subjective, at least enough that they can become measurable quantities. No one would be in denial of a subjective element, but it only confirms what is voted best, is sort-of objectively best, for any demographic of ppl inclined to certain preferences. Surely no one can say "the best" means anything other than, "my favourite, by my preferences/priorities". Different strokes for different folks.
I already said that I disagreed with your premise and explained why. People make best of or top 10 lists all the time. They are almost always not purely objective. I gave some examples before, but I'll expand on that for you. Here is a list of topics that get ranked in best of or top whatever lists (many of these can be for the present and ever): - best movies of the year - best tv shows of the year - best broadway shows - best songs - best bands - best singers - best guitarists - best drummers - best college teams in a given sport - best professional teams in a given sport - best athletes in a given sport or in all sports - best restaurants - best pizza - best sushi - best burgers - best cars - best amusement parks - best roller coasters - best journalists - best presidents - best tablets - best novels - best children's books - best toys - best candy bar - best TV's - best zoos (done here all the time and a poster on here co-authored an entire book with that in the title) I could go on. Depending on who's discussing those things and the topic itself, there may be a fair amount of research, testing, and/or data to support the rankings, but they are still clearly opinions, thus subjective. With all that said, the word is not that important to me. It doesn't have to be best even though best clearly does not suggest it's objective. As for it being an official ZooChat ranking, I already said in the thread I created that this does not need to be that. It doesn't matter to me either way. I just think it would be a fun thing to do, would generate discussion, and would be a cool thing to track over time.
