Goodreads Ratings Then and Now

[EugeneGant]

I would say all the best stories have already been written, even going back to the Old Testament writings. Everything now is just a different version of what has come before.

[Katsunami]

Also, many (yes, MANY) people are retarded regarding the assignment of ratings, being unable to give anything else besides 5 stars or one star. So, the better books will be overrated, the 'normal' books will be underrated, and a lot of books targeted at a broad audience will end up with 2.5 stars.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Also, many (yes, MANY) people are retarded regarding the assignment of ratings, [...]

Please don't.

[barutanseijin]

I give Goodreads four stars as web 2.0 marketing scheme and 1.25 stars as a forum for book discussion.

If a book can really be summarised with a star rating, is it really worth reading?

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The trouble is that you're never going to get consistency between the way that people rate books. In a 5-star rating system, I'd give a rating of 3 stars (ie the average rating) to a book which is competently written, with no obvious flaws or errors, but with nothing that made it stand out from the crowd. ie nothing that makes it better than or worse than the average; that allows me to reserve 4- and 5-star ratings to books which are truly exceptional. I know many people, however, will give a 5-star rating to a book they enjoyed, even if they don't consider it to be truly exceptional, and would regard a 3-star rating as a negative rating.

You see that style of rating in things like videogames a lot where 70% (or similar) has effectively become an average game's score.

I would tend to go with similar ratings to you, although the guidelines on goodreads seem a little more positive than that for a 3-star.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by BuyMore

I always look for the 1 - 3 stars reviews when I'm trying to see if a new author is worth checking out. Sometimes the issues that bother them are a huge turn-off for me, too. In that case, I'll give up the idea of getting it.



Wonder if it's the same book I've read...

A book that burned me deeply has a pretty good rating on GR :

Spoiler:

Beautiful DISASTER. Seriously, totally disastrous.

You can use the spoiler tag just like I did.

Now see I gave that book 5 stars. I loved it.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by meeera

Please don't.

I agree It's a word that needs to stop being used. See this site.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Atunah

That would be great. As it is now, I do that work on my own. I don't have a huge amount of friends, I select many specifically on what books they read and if we match well. So I use the percentage match system goodreads has. But you have to find the readers first to use that tool. So now after a few years on GR, I know when I see ratings by friends and those I follow, I can be more assured I will like the book.

No sure thing in any case, but more often than not it works for me to find books I really will like.

But it would be nice if the system could suggest possible friends to me based on the books we both rated. Unless I "meet" them somewhere online, I wouldn't know they existed.

I follow one blog just because I know if she rates it bad I will love it most of the time. So you can also find those who have opposite tastes to find books you like. Just look at their DNF or one stars ratings.

[Tarana]

Where the Goodreads system is especially useful is for older titles where fewer than 100 have read the book. We're talking books from the 50s, 60, and 70s or even older. You aren't getting reviews from friends and family - you are getting reader reviews. Very interesting sometimes.