The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[JSWolf]

Here is an example of the rubbish that I'm talking about. The book is not due until February 2023 and yet it's got ratings and reviews. Only one review is an ARC and the review is not good (not the stars rating but the actual review).

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60708902

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't really even look at star ratings. They don't factor into my decisions.

I do sometimes look at them. But I will also read some of the reviews.

I think Goodreads should make it so you have to specifically say you have read an ARC copy (check box) before you can review a book (not yet released) and not until your review is written and posted can your stars show up in the books listing.

That would solve the problem.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Considering the number of objectively useless services, practices, etc. that millions of people are willing to pay for

Again... your declaration of services being "objectively useless" does not actually make them so. It only means that YOU find them useless. If you'd take a step back, you might realize that you, me, and uncle Pete aren't the arbiters of what's useless for anyone but ourselves.

Originally Posted by DNSB

I personally consider usefulness to be a very low if present criteria in many peoples eyes.

The very fact that millions of people find them useful refutes your hypothesis that they are objectively and universally useless. I would suggest that "many people" should probably get over themselves. The world's full of people who find many different things more useful than many other people do.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I think Goodreads should make it so you have to specifically say you have read an ARC copy (check box) before you can review a book (not yet released) and not until your review is written and posted can your stars show up in the books listing.

That would solve the problem.

I just don't care enough to think Goodreads needs to do anything regarding the "problem".

The world is not beholden to make my navigation of it easy. I found books I liked before the internet was a thing and I've found even more books I've liked since.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't really even look at star ratings. They don't factor into my decisions.

If the book has a high overall star rating (4+) I don't pay much attention either - many books have high ratings and may just be fanboys/girls I may not agree with.

But I've found that books with lower overall ratings do usually turn out not to be good.



If most of the reviews include GIFs or photos of actors that the reviewer believes represent the characters in the book, I'll move on.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

If the book has a high overall star rating (4+) I don't pay much attention either - many books have high ratings and may just be fanboys/girls I may not agree with.

But I've found that books with lower overall ratings do usually turn out not to be good.

I don't know if GR has a similar feature, but one handy feature of reviews at TheStoryGraph is the ability to choose to see only those reviews which include written comments. 5/5 "Best.Book.EVAH (my 1000% honest ARC review)" comments aside, this does tend to leave the reviews where the reader put some thought into expressing what they liked/disliked. It has saved me from quite a few books.

[ownedbycats]

I've taken to skimming the 1 and 2-star reviews on books, just to avoid a repeat of Stardoc (which had a very family-unfriendly scene which disturbed me enough to have to put the book aside for a while).

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

I don't know if GR has a similar feature, but one handy feature of reviews at TheStoryGraph is the ability to choose to see only those reviews which include written comments. 5/5 "Best.Book.EVAH (my 1000% honest ARC review)" comments aside, this does tend to leave the reviews where the reader put some thought into expressing what they liked/disliked. It has saved me from quite a few books.

Goodreads toplists written reviews over ratings only and ranks them in order of popularity. I find two-star reviews more helpful than one star; this is in part because I think they’re more nuanced and not just “this is a pile of carp”, but also because since ratings are more or less bell-shaped, more two-star reviews also means helpful ones are more prominent.

To a somewhat lesser extent, there is a similar pattern with four- and five-star reviews but I find them less helpful anyway, unless it’s a reviewer I “know”, and in that case Goodreads lists them above all reviews anyway. It’s three stars that’s a puzzler for me and I think it’s because it’s my own disconnect with how most people view three stars. For me, three stars means pretty good to quite good; reviewers however seem to view it as damning with faint praise at best.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by issybird

It’s three stars that’s a puzzler for me and I think it’s because it’s my own disconnect with how most people view three stars. For me, three stars means pretty good to quite good; reviewers however seem to view it as damning with faint praise at best.

This is part of the reason I switched my Calibre library to using a 10-point scale (custom ratings column with half-stars). For me, there's a vast difference between 2.5, 3, and 3.5 stars.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I've taken to skimming the 1 and 2-star reviews on books, just to avoid a repeat of Stardoc (which had a very family-unfriendly scene which disturbed me enough to have to put the book aside for a while).

Oh, ugh. I had to look and that would be a hard no-go.

Fortunately, the description alone had my eyes glazing over as they rolled inside my head. I just could not, even if it was all hearts and puppies.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

This is part of the reason I switched my Calibre library to using a 10-point scale (custom ratings column with half-stars). For me, there's a vast difference between 2.5, 3, and 3.5 stars.

I mostly think five stars is granular enough, but the exception for me is 3.5 stars. Three stars is my baseline and books go up or down from there; however, I round down 3.5 stars to 3 and I agree there’s a vast difference between “good enough” and “quite good”. It’s occurred to me I should round up 3.5 stars to 4 and 4 stars to 5 as I almost never rate a book 5 stars, but I just don’t feel it. So there it is; imperfect but mine own.

As for the other interim steps, it would be meaningless granularity for me. Two stars means pretty junky or serious flaws or not to my taste; a combination would knock it down to one star, which also of course describes egregiously bad. As for the difference between four stars and five stars, five stars implies perfection or love, if not both. In terms of the quality of the read, there’s probably not much difference, but I know it when I read it.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I've taken to skimming the 1 and 2-star reviews on books, just to avoid a repeat of Stardoc (which had a very family-unfriendly scene which disturbed me enough to have to put the book aside for a while).

I read Stardoc some 20 years ago, but it was so bad I still remember it. Family-unfriendly scenes bother me only when they include cruelty against animals (aliens don't count) and frankly I'm a fan of moderate non-con in erotica (in fiction only, of course, never in real life), but Stardoc was IMO rubbish. Implausible non-science (after all, it wants to be a science fiction novel, not fantasy) and totally annoying Mary-Sueish protagonist. Just ugh.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I read Stardoc some 20 years ago, but it was so bad I still remember it. Family-unfriendly scenes bother me only when they include cruelty against animals (aliens don't count) and frankly I'm a fan of moderate non-con in erotica (in fiction only, of course, never in real life), but Stardoc was IMO rubbish. Implausible non-science (after all, it wants to be a science fiction novel, not fantasy) and totally annoying Mary-Sueish protagonist. Just ugh.

I was mainly reading it for the weird aliens. Of course, the one the protagonist got into a romance with was literally just a human but blue, lol.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I was mainly reading it for the weird aliens. Of course, the one the protagonist got into a romance with was literally just a human but blue, lol.

The problem with aliens in that book was that they were basically just humans in costumes. Of course it's very difficult to do really alien aliens. Too often they're either humans in disguise or talking animals (remarkably terrestrial as well).

[ownedbycats]

A more minor rant: I really wish Amazon would let you put Kindle books in a cart and check them all out at once.

Also, I need to clean out my inbox of "Your Amazon.ca order for a single free book" emails...