Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

Average Customer Rating:

Really Good Book	Customer Rating:
I borrowed this book from the local library. I just finished it yesterday. It is a really quick read. I liked how the author used "real world" examples to illustrate his point. I plan to apply many of these techniques into my own business.

great stuff!

Customer Rating:

I read this for a MBA class. Out of the stack of books assigned, so far, this is the only one I liked. It is relevant to today's curious questions of how to get crowds engaged, how crowds behave, and why we even care. I'm trying to teach people to work collaboratively together at work. They "think" they already are doing this but the author gives me new ideas on how to further their participation in team work. I find that in corporate america, people contribute mostly in their assigned role. "I am a business analyst so I don't give my 2 cents when solutioning". Yikes it drives me crazy that they put their single hats on then multi-task when we start talking about something that isn't their specialty. Anyway, I underlined something on every other page which is a sign that I found this useful and something I will want to learn to apply. Did I mention how good a writer this guy is?

UNique thinking for these turbulent times

Customer Rating:

I love books that take a new and unique idea, thoroughly research and expand the idea, and then present the findings in an entertaining, though-provoking way. The Wisdom of Crowds is one such book. Other recent titles that have achieved the same type of cult following for presenting unique hypotheses include The Tipping Point, Blink and The 4 Hour Work Week. You know the old saying, if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got, and in the current turbulent economic and socially challenging times, this could not ring more true. Surowiecki presents a unique concept that the collective thoughts of many will always be smarter than the elite few. He delves deep into this concept, and presents scenario after scenario for which this hypotheses holds true. The arguyment is compelling as it is entertaining and is hard to refute with all the evidence set forth. Even if you disagree with the central theme, you'd be hard-pressed to say that you didn't find this book an entertaining read. The examples used to support his case alone are entertaining, educational and thought-provoking. We really do need forward thinkers like Surowiecki to help look at the world's problems from a differing perspective. I really do look forward to Surowiecki's next book. A great read! Leigh Burke Author of Niche Internet Marketing NICHE Internet Marketing: The secrets to exploiting untapped niche markets and unleashing a tsunami of cash

Hilarious!

Customer Rating:

Hee, hee, hee! This title and this book sure look funny right now (September 22nd, 2008). Do we follow the wisdom of the crowds on Wall Street (which, if left to its own devises will continue to drive financial titans into bankrupcy), or the machinations of the dubious experts (Paulson & Bernanke), who will put us on the hook for hundreds of billions for years to come? Maybe it's time to dust off that 19th Century classic "The Madness of Crowds" instead of reading this smug balderdash.

Why don't quantum physicists let a crowd predict the Higgs' particle mass-energy?

Customer Rating:

The author's thesis is that the answers of huge numbers of people tend to be more accurate than those of individuals even if these individuals are experts in the specific subject. He makes clear that this is not true for any specific trial in which one individual might score better than the average, but in a series of trials, the crowd outperforms any individual. The author also explains "magnification " of mistakes by peer conformance, a phenomenon that does not occur when the answer comes from a random crowd. Results from crowds or groups should be averaged and not "consensed" in order to obtain unbiased results. In general I found the author's thesis quite interesting. During an exercise in class on peer conformance, we have seen, how the group's consensus gave a worse result than the best individual answer. Thus I agree with the author that peer conformance is not generating the best results. On the other hand, I doubt that this approach would work with more complex things than assigning magnitudes like weight, value, size, etc. to a common item. I do not believe that this method would come up with a cure for cancer or even assigning a magnitude like mass to a not so well known object like for example a W boson or a quark. It would also be interesting to find out if the crowds can predict the energy at which the 3 forces of nature unite (or even the four forces, including gravity). All in all a good book.