I have noticed here on Goodreads that there are members who claim to read hundreds of books a week, which would be several a day.

I'm sorry, but if you make such a claim, either you have the watch from "The Girl, The Gold Watch and Everything" by John D. MacDonald, or you are a liar.

It's impossible to read 170 books a week, as some here claim.

I know that Tai Lopez claims he reads one book a day, but I think that is equally unlikely. Skimming a book and gathering its main ideas, plot and themes is not the same thing as reading it. Go back to your garage, Tai. You're a lunatic.

If you are wealthy and have nothing to do, I suppose you could actually manage to read one book a day. I doubt you could keep it up for very long, and you would have to choose mid-length books, which excludes some pretty good ones. But that would come to the sum of seven books a week, give or take, far short of 170.

So what's the deal on these miraculous super-readers? Am I missing something? Shouldn't we actually read a book before marking it as read, or more, rating it?

For my part, no book will be so marked or reviewed without a complete reading. I am not going to give a book five stars because I like the idea of the book but have not actually read it.

For instance, I have only read the first third of The Brother's Karamazov and would rate THAT five stars, but it gets no rating until I finish the book. Likewise, just because I don't like the idea of a book such as, say, Fifty Shades of Gray doesn't mean I get to give it one star. I have to read it first.

I think reviews should be required here before you can rate anything just to prove you read it, but then, there would probably be a lot of attrition.

I am not sure if anyone can see this blog, so comment if you saw it, and if you have an explanation or opinion, please, also comment!