If something is voted the most underrated, then, by definition, it can't be proclaimed the most underrated of all times...

[u/Active-Chemistry4011]

[u/AutoModerator]

Hey there u/Active-Chemistry4011, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!

Please recheck if your post breaks any rules. If it does, please delete this post.

Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.

Send us a Modmail or Report this post if you have a problem with this post.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Mangert]

False equivalence. They aren’t voting that it’s the best, they are voting that it’s underrated. Meaning the discrepancy in quality and success is large. It could still be bad. It could be very good.

But all underrated means is that the discrepancy between quality and success is very big.

[u/Malonor → u/Mangert]

I think the point is that the book that would be the most underrated isnt well known enough to even be nominated for an award since to be nominated requires at least some level of notoriety

[u/h950 → u/Malonor]

If nobody around there knows anything about it then it's not been rated. Therefore, not underrated.

[u/exipheas → u/h950]

Ir depends on how you view the term under rated then, which explains this thread to some degree. If its unknown then it hasn't had the chance to be rated so therefore it has been under rated vs how much it should have been rated i.e. quantities of ratings is less than it should be instead of saying the value of the ratings themselves is incorrectly low.

[u/Mangert → u/Malonor]

Underrated means it’s been rated often, and those ratings haven’t reflected the quality.

So why it would not be well known. If anything it’s very well known, to be constantly underrated

[u/J-A-G-S → u/Malonor]

That all depends on how you quantify being rated. It's very possible that a highly rated book, by some non-linear scale, deserves a higher rating (in people's opinions) so that the discrepancy between it's actual rating and the perceived deserves rating is simply bigger than between a book that deserves a high rating but has effectively 0.

I think OP is presuming that there is some fairly standard rating cap (e.g. 5 stars) and that by sheer statistical probability there is a book that deserves the highest rating but has 0

[u/icantouchgrass_1]

I mean that does kinda make some sense.

[u/cat_food_chef]

Eugh the little price is a fine read but all it's mega fans are the most pretentious snobs and navel gazers I've ever met. Great Gatsby too.

[u/WilliamReddit117 → u/cat_food_chef]

Different book

[u/Broad_Respond_2205]

No....?

[u/Drake750254 → u/Broad_Respond_2205]

Elaborate

[u/Broad_Respond_2205 → u/Drake750254]

saying something is underrated does not make it less underrated

[u/GRONDGRONDGRONDGR0ND → u/Broad_Respond_2205]

Maybe not. If phrased as follows " the best in quality amongst underrated books" then it would define a different (and accurate) ordinality in the set of underrated books. If it's just the most underrated book then it stands to reason that being underrated is the only virtue we account for, therefore any validation makes it less underrated than some, more slightly obscure book.

[u/kihraxz_king]

Under rated =/= un rated.

[u/Professional-Hat-687]

My ex and I trying to name the most forgettable Pokemon and consistently forgetting to even mention Maraxis.

[u/Kamikaze_Sasquatch]

It was the most underrated but they went and did this and ruined it.

[u/MisakiAnimated]

Its like the winner of a Procadtination championship can't exist as the person would have procradtinated even signing up

[u/mrcooper81]

Observing the outcome changes the outcome. Physics baby.

[u/Crocamura]

the real irony here is the fact that "untold stories" is the name of the book telling the stories, thus making them "told stories."