UK Book Club discussion

I was wondering what people thought about changing the ratings they gave books.

Should you stick with the rating you originally gave or is it good to adjust a rating based on how you look back on a book.

Looking back at the books read this year i have found that some books just don't seem to fit in the rating band they are in, mainly in comparison with other books.

So should i amend them or leave them how i first thought?

I'd leave it, because you're rating out on how you felt it measured up at the time...not how it compares to other books.
I find as time goes on, the stronger points stay with me, the things I really liked or disliked about a book, but not always the overall feeling I have of the book.
I'm often surprised at rating something low, when I come across it six months later, but it must have been justified at the time!

Ha! Well I change mine if I think on reflection I was too generous or too harsh... I know what you mean when you look back and a book jumps out as not really deserving the 4 or 5 stars or that 1-2 stars was mean when a book has proved to be one that seems better from a distance or a character or plot has given you pause for thought. It's up to you, I guess.

I tend to agree with Louise - my ratings reflect what UI felt about the book at the time.

If I changed them, I'd never have any time to read anything else!!

When I first joined GR I rated dozens of books, and I'm pretty sure I was either too harsh or too generous with some. I have changed a few of the more obvious ones, but will leave the majority as they are, as I agree that I now think the rating wrong because I've compared the book with a more recently read one.
I find rating quite difficult anyway, as I find it impossible to use five levels to differentiate between a cosy whodunnit that's been great fun to read, and a prize winning masterpiece or classic.
I tend to rate on how much I've actually enjoyed it personally.

I find it really difficult to rate books - at first I wanted to give everything 4 or 5 stars unless it was rubbish but now I tend to give 3 stars to a book that I enjoyed/was a good read but nothing out of the ordinary. I have gone back to change ratings too but that's usually because I've rated it too harshly, comparing it with something that's amazing but not within the same "genre". Trying to have a policy particularly with books that are less "literary" ( "genre" type books for want of a better term) to rate them according to where they sit within that particular genre - is it a good read within that genre etc... 'cause otherwise you are just not comparing apples with apples.

Have to say that poor editing etc will straight away put it down the ratings no matter how good the story might be (but generally the stories that are pooly edited and proofed aren't fab to begin with...)

I can see why you might want to change a rating. I don't think I've done so unless maybe I've reread and it has or hasn't been more enjoyable to me the second time. I think as I am a part of goodreads my ratings might tend to be a bit harder than when I first joined up.

I occasionally change ratings but usually within a short time of reading them.

I have changed the odd rating but mostly I rate a book by how I felt about it at the time. I don't compare books with each other when rating them. Few books get the extremes 1 and 5. It's so easy to rate a book as 3, the middle. Often I wish I could do a 3+ or 3-.

I'll usually make a note in the review if I think a book is really a 3 1/2. But I'm inconsistent as to whether I'll set the rating high or low.

I wish GR would allow to record second readings as it would be great to compare ratings. I tend to leave the original rating.

My books are very much in the 3 - 4 bands, occasional 2's but very few 1's and 5's.

I see 5's as 'all time favourites' and have not put many in there, I am seriously tempted to upgrade a few of the very good 4's.