Well, yes, but it’s technically not true 
I have read more books due to rereads. Since rereads are not implemented, I thought it was less confusing for a casual user that way.
(I don’t really know what to do about “page read” though, which is why I didn’t mention it)
I guess it would also be possible to add a small circled question mark next to “Books Read” explaining the situation instead.
Personally, I’d rather suggest the opposite and remove “unique” from authors/series. It seems quite clear to me that if you read 10 books by an author that stats are not going to show that you read “10 authors”.
PS: Congrats to 1000+ unique books, @Naphthalene! I can only dream of reaching this moment for now! 
By “hierarchy” I meant more like a weighting system. e.g. slice of life has a weight of 60% but sci-fi has a weight of 20% in terms of accurately predicting difficulty.
I agree that it will probably work out most of the time. I just know that occasionally with books we see instances of the difficulty rating being so wildly inaccurate that it’s impossible to get it back to the right rating.
Will TV/movies allow for a wider range of comparisons initially, or will it still only be 5 levels like for books? Since TV/movies lacks the subcategories to give closer initial guesses I thought a wider comparison range might be allowed.
I thought about increasing the level range too… but more just from the aspect of wanting to increase the number of comparisons. You’re right too that the temporary system won’t be active starting out so where things start will make a difference (albeit, for the first month or so).
I think i’ll launch with just the 5 level limit for now. That’s a quick followup tweak if we want later, just a lot of other things to worry about now.
As a general update, I continue to just discover little things unfortunately, but hopefully release very soon. There’s no major things left to implement, just tweaking right now.
Oh, also before I forget. I did edit my original post with additional shows a few times, so it’s possible you missed those while building out the library.
Passing thought, but wonder if it would be possible to crosslink manga and light novels (and other forms). I know they’re different difficulty levels so it makes sense to seperate them, but I also kind feel like they should be grouped together a little bit… (I know you can just find them by the search function, ofc)
Yeah for sure. I like the way anilist does their ‘relations’ and I would love to do something like that at some point. Not sure if there’s a product request in for that yet, but if not feel free to log it! 
There’s not one yet for that. So feel free to submit it.
I always end up wondering about the difficulty part when I see things like the 盾の勇者の成り上がり 1 | L31 novel being L30 and the 盾の勇者の成り上がり 1 | L33 manga being L33, but I suppose unless the user base increases by a lot grading accuracy will just stay a bit hit and miss for less popular things… 
I feel a bit like I’m beating a dead horse here, since we had a similar discussion not all that long ago, but I keep coming back to the idea so I kinda just wanted to hear what perspective you all have :b
… what do you all think about changing the grading system to be drag&drop on a sort of ladder, instead of the current system of single book comparisons?
Something like this, with books in the same row being marked as the same difficulty and the higher ones marked as more difficult:
Should drastically reduce the time needed to grade if the system ever got updated to being able to incorporate infinite comparisons from a single user.
Want to change the grading for a book? Just drag it around instead of having to delete all gradings and do them again.
One could potentially even extract more information, like roughly how much more difficult you perceived a book to be instead of just “harder” 
I really like that idea for this point specifically.
This is a really cool idea, I hadn’t thought of anything like this before. I’m not sure how the math would work on the backend but this seems like an intuitive and user-friendly way to rank your library. It would also prevent circular grading paradoxes (as in a>b, b>c, c>a) since the books are all on the same scale.
I like the concept, but I think it could get messy if you read a lot of books. Also, I think if I had a view of everything I’ve ever graded like this, it might become difficult to grade things going forward due to information overload making me try to compare it to everything at once. Whereas right now I can just skip individual comparisons if I feel like I can’t compare them.
Could you perhaps have a hybrid system? Have a few gradings similar to the format we have now, and once the system’s narrowed down a few difficulty “shelves” for you to sort into, it displays just that portion of the “shelving”?
Perhaps if it only showed the shelves for the books the system planned to compare against? That would certainly reduce the overwhelming aspect.
That said, I’m not sure a global order for all books exists. So what if you personally said book A is harder than book B, but the overall score says book A is easier than book B? Would the shelf be based on your personal difficulty scoring or the system’s?
I was thinking it would only show your personal rankings. The normal level number would show the system ranking, independent of your personal ranking.
But wouldn’t that break how the comparisons work today? e.g. the system may not allow you to compare two books that are over 5 levels apart, even if you think they are similar in difficulty and want to place them on the same shelf. I’m trying to understand how much this proposal is to change the underlying behavior versus just changing how it’s visualized.
Edit: Moved my reply to the product request to try and keep things a bit more organized.
I’d love that in some fashion. At the very least, i’d love to generate that personal ranked list for you from your comparisons. But if we were to use it as an input mechanism, it’s hard for the grading system to handle it in it’s current form.
We’ve actually discussed before at one point moving away from Elo entirely and focusing on personal ranked lists like you’ve described. The task then would be to combine all those personal user rankings into one global aggregate ranking. However, my understanding is that it’s a relatively open research question in mathematics on how to combine partial ranked links into one aggregate ranking.
Another way would be to generate pairwise comparisons from those ranked list. However, Elo in its present form couldn’t handle those generated comparisons due to the limitation around a single user being limited to ~6 grades a book (as you point out). We could perhaps address that issue with a change to a static Elo system such as bradley-terry which I’ll eventually do… just would take a quite a bit of work and there are lots of high priority things now. However, the static elo system could probably handle the comparisons generated from this interface.
@seanblue does bring up some reasonable interface issues as well. I think i’d always allow you to just do the comparisons in pairs (its easy) but then generate the personal ranked list which you could tweak.
I think this is an interesting idea though, and if you wanted to make a product request, we could chat more there too. 
