Dragons & Jetpacks discussion

This was sparked by a Tweet that Cait at Paper Fury sent out the other day, and then also partially by our conversation about certain reviewers giving all books they review really negative reviews.

Do you think there is an 'ideal' overall Goodreads rating for users? For example, mine is currently 3.49, and to me that's quite good as it seems to show that I probably have quite a wide range of ratings as my overall is somewhere in the middle. If someone rates every book really highly or gives it a really low score, do you think they're less 'trustworthy'?

Personally I think a higher average makes no difference - they probably just love reading and books that much ;) But an average below 3 might say to me that this person might need to think about another hobby!

What do you think?

Rinn wrote: "But an average below 3 might say to me that this person might need to think about another hobby!
"

LOL I agree with you completely on that one!

But I suppose I am bias, as it turns out I average 4-stars. Seems a bit high to me! I feel like I throw out a number of 3 and 2 stars. I think a couple of 1 stars.

I think my high yield of 4 and 5 stars though has to do with me being good at picking out books. I love reading....good stories that appeal to me. I HATE reading books that bore me. I don't read genres I don't like. I don't read authors I hate. I DO read authors I love. I pick out books that have similar tones and themes and styles to books I I love. I'm glad to say that me truly hating books is a rare surprise, in no small part due to good recommendations and a discerning eye.

There is probably some sway in my rankings due to no half-stars though. A few get rounded down, but many get rounded up simply because I enjoyed myself while reading it, which is ultimately what I'm looking for.

I'm definitely on a high average, around 4 but I tend to pick my books carefully enough.

Same, Andrew - that's why very few of my books have 1 star ratings, because if I hate it that much then chances are I will just drop it.

Half stars could be good - especially for 2.5 and 4.5, I've had a lot of books that have felt not quite 2, not quite 4! Maybe that's why I have 3.49 average, because they end up as 3s ;)

I think that your rating is perfect Rinn, I mean a 3.49 average just seems like it's the absolute best.

I mean my 3.49 just shows that I'm an honest reviewer that is willing to try new things but also knows what books they like to read and read a lot of those as well.

Ooh, snap, Roger! Obviously it's the best ;)

Noooo I just noticed mine is now 3.5 after being 3.49 for AGES!

I'm not sure what mine is ill have to check on the laptop but I know it will be closer to 4 and possibly higher. But like Andrew and Paul I stick to what I like and what is recommended to me by people with similar tastes. I don't read things I don't want to or jump on a lot of hype wagons or anything like that so most books I read end up being 4 - 5 stars. It's rare that I'll hit a book that is 2 or 1. I know things like a lot of the popular YA stuff would drive me nuts so I just don't read it which keeps my average fairly high.

I'm reminded of the George Carlin bit: "Did you ever notice that when you're driving on the highway, everyone going slower than you is an idiot, but everyone going faster than you is a maniac?" :D

My average was about 3.01 just over a year ago, and I did consider choosing another hobby. But I think I've gotten smarter about picking what to read and my average is on its way up.

I try to follow the Goodreads official guidelines - 3 stars means I liked it, 2 stars was meh. I'll only give five stars when the book makes me go Wow.

Sometimes I come across people who have average ratings of 2 or less, and honestly I feel like these people need to be more targeted in how they choose their reads. I mean, if you don't like a particular genre, why would you go for it?? Just seems like such a waste of time when you could be reading so many great books.

I've got a 3.45 average rating- most books are 3 or 4. And I have more 5 star ratings than both 1 and 2 combined!

I definitely agree that there's nothing wrong with a high average! Just shows that you know the type of book that you like :)

I've got a 3.38 average and I'm pretty happy about it. Of course sometimes you read something that's not entirely your genre, so you end up loving or hating it. But I agree with the opinion that it's kind of strange to review a genre you just don't like, over and over again.

My ratings are loosely based on the following guidelines:
1 star - Bad. Don't recommend this, unless you want to laugh or cry in horror.
2 stars - Meh, I didn't enjoy it, but someone else might. There's potential.
3 stars - It was enjoyable, but there's room for improvement.
4 stars - I really enjoyed this, it fits its genre, was worth my time and made a good impression.
5 stars - This was an amazing experience that I won't forget very soon. Must read!

I have a 3.94 average. I think it means I mostly give decent to good ratings but then there will a book that really pisses me off and gets a 1 star.

I'd listen to a 1 star from someone with an average like that much more than a 1 star from someone who throws them around like confeti

My average is 4.39 and it used to be higher. I would really have to dislike a book to give it one star or two stars.

I just checked and I've only given 1 one star and 4 two star reviews out of 550 .

I average about a 3.75. I think in the past couple of years I have given a lot of 4 star reviews. I generally like most of the books I read. Then again I think I rate sometimes based more on emotion than technical stuff.

Paul wrote: "I'd listen to a 1 star from someone with an average like that much more than a 1 star from someone who throws them around like confeti"

That's a good point.

I think the one of the great thing about a group like this is that you get a lot more than a star rating ever can as you learn whos tastes match yours and whose don't , and chatting about a book will sell it to me quicker than a rating

My average is 3.04 which suits me just fine. I think some people look at a three star rating like it's a bad rating (usually the same people who toss out five stars for every book). I follow GR's description for the rating system so, to me, three stars is a good rating. It means I liked the book. That's a good thing. I very rarely give out five or one star ratings. Out of 546 ratings, I've awarded a five star 22 times and a one star 12 times.

Probably my early years on GR had an effect too. I was trying to give all sorts of genres extended chances to win me over before I finally tossed up the white flag and admitted that Romance and YA were never going to be my thing.

I do try to stick to the GR rating description, like you Veronica. I do try to see a 3 star book rating as meaning I liked it and it's a good thing (I've even gone back and downgraded books to 2 star that I thought in hindsight didn't quite deserve 3). My average rating is 4.03 and i've always thought it was maybe a little too high, I definitely reserve a 5 star rating for books I truly love, not just books I like a lot. I think I am pretty good at choosing books that I know I will like.

Christina wrote: "I average about a 3.75. I think in the past couple of years I have given a lot of 4 star reviews. I generally like most of the books I read. Then again I think I rate sometimes based more on emotio..."

Emotion is DEFINITELY a big factor. I don't always care if the writing isn't perfect - how does it make me feel? If I'm crying over the death of a character or cheering them on during an adventure or a relationship, then it's going to get a higher rating for sure!

@Veronica: Talking of early years - many of the books I read pre-GR that I've remembered to add have a 3 star rating if I don't remember how I felt about the book, just because that seemed fairest putting it somewhere in the middle.

@Nic: Have definitely also downgraded books too, after some thought!

What always puzzles me is when I see reviews where the person goes on and on about all the things they didn't like about the book - slow plot, plot holes galore, one dimensional characters, etc. - and yet they'll still give the book four stars. Other times I think people tend to rate the author (especially if it's an author they really like) rather the actual book at hand.

I don't actually write reviews and really only rate and use the site for my own tracking. I would be a horrible reviewer for sure. I was just thinking the other day that my scale must be more like 3-5 stars because these days if something is worse than that, I don't tend to finish the book. I never would stop a book without finishing when I was younger, but now that I have switched to mostly reading on a Kindle I find it easier and don't want to waste my time if I am not enjoying it. Because of this I am reading much more and I tend to be a slower reader, so books I don't enjoy would often just put me in a reading slump. I am probably too forgiving of books and other forms of entertainment. Maybe I am easily pleased, not sure. I figure if a book keeps me reading to the point where I ignore other enjoyments in life because I am enjoying it so much then it deserves the high rating I give it.

I admit this doesn't lend itself to being good at recommending books to others, but then I don't have any friends that read Fantasy or Sci Fi. In fact I am just a lurker here, but like this group quite a bit as I have added books I didn't know about to my list and also remembered books I bought, but haven't read so have moved them back to the top or near the top to be read soon.

I have to agree with some others that if someone starts off a review saying they usually dislike the genre then I stop reading their review. Whether it is rated high or low. To me their opinion is not going to line up with mine most of the time. It is great that people branch out into other genres, but I see that in reviews much too often as if it should be a selling point and to me it isn't.

Paul wrote: "I think the one of the great thing about a group like this is that you get a lot more than a star rating ever can as you learn whos tastes match yours and whose don't , and chatting about a book wi..."

Agreed, I have learned that Lancer and myself rarely see eye to eye on books :)

Its easy for you then , read anything Lancer hates :-)

I like that we have two mods with opposite tastes :P

So when we both like the same thing, like Way of Kings and Wool, you know it must be amazing!

Jeff wrote: "I don't actually write reviews and really only rate and use the site for my own tracking. I would be a horrible reviewer for sure. I was just thinking the other day that my scale must be more like ..."

Learning that it's okay to give up on a book that isn't doing it for me was a great turning point for me and reading LOL

Andrew wrote: "Jeff wrote: "I don't actually write reviews and really only rate and use the site for my own tracking. I would be a horrible reviewer for sure. I was just thinking the other day that my scale must ..."

Same here Jeff, I used to refuse to put a book down even if I hated it, I remember rooting for all the protagonists to be killed at the end of one book I was reading. Sadly, they all survived, it's much better to just stop reading. Life is too short to read bad books.

I am a bit OCD on finishing a book but I have noticed that I tend to give the books a higher grading than other people do. Guess I should pay a bit more attention than I do when assigning my stars. Maybe books that take me a long time to read - but no reason why - since I read all the time should get a lower rating as that says to me that another book caught my attention - these I have tended to give lower ratings.

It's only very recently that I'm learning not to finish a book if I'm not enjoying it, I'm really tempted to give up on By Light Alone right now.

Nic wrote: "It's only very recently that I'm learning not to finish a book if I'm not enjoying it, I'm really tempted to give up on By Light Alone right now."

I almost gave up on Wool, but I'm glad I didn't, it turned out to be one of my favorite reads in a while.

I'm sitting at a 4.18 average right now, for a couple reasons.
If I'm hating or am bored by a book, say one- or two-stars, I don't finish it. If I don't finish it, I don't rate it.
Also, I think I've gotten to know my tastes well enough that I mostly pick books I'll probably enjoy.
I do write reviews because it helps me process my feelings about the book, helps my critical thinking, and helps me become a better writer. Also, since I skim through reviews, I would like to think my opinions could prove as helpful to someone as others have to me.

Roger wrote: "Same here Jeff, I used to refuse to put a book down even if I hated it, I remember rooting for all the protagonists to be killed at the end of one book I was reading. Sadly, they all survived, it's much better to just stop reading. Life is too short to read bad books."

Haha, it's always a bad sign when you're rooting for the protagonists to die. Been there, done that.

It's just been within the last year that I've finally given myself permission to DNF books. It's been very liberating.

I didn't even know there were averages for our reviews. I have no idea what mine is, and I can't think why I'd need to know. Interesting rating system....

It's to see how much you like books compared to your Goodreads peers Wayland.

Wayland wrote: "I didn't even know there were averages for our reviews. I have no idea what mine is, and I can't think why I'd need to know. Interesting rating system...."

FYI your average is a 3.34...

Roger wrote: "Wayland wrote: "I didn't even know there were averages for our reviews. I have no idea what mine is, and I can't think why I'd need to know. Interesting rating system...."

FYI your average is a 3...."

Hmm. Well I do give some 5's, but I give some 1;s as well. *shrug*

So nice and in the middle :P Quite a few of us have 3 somethings!

Like you said though, I'm not entirely sure WHAT it's for - but I think it's quite interesting to see rating distributions.

Kimberley wrote: "I've got a 3.38 average and I'm pretty happy about it. Of course sometimes you read something that's not entirely your genre, so you end up loving or hating it. But I agree with the opinion that it..."

That's about what I do. I think my average is 3.5
1 -- did not like it
2 -- meh; okay; not my style
3 -- I liked it fine; no real complaints
4 -- really enjoyed it
5 -- amazing, blew me away

So I don't give 5 stars very often, but when I do, you know it's amazing.

I've only recently given myself permission to not finish a book. I won't give it a rating then, just to be fair.

I suppose seeing your average rating isn't "for" anything. Just a fun fact. Though if you see a highly caustic review, it may be worth checking to see if this person just says this all the time for attention, or if they're a normal person with varied viewpoints and they genuinely disliked this book ;)

Do any of you go back and change your ratings? Nic, you mentioned that you have gone back and down graded a book, have you ever given one a higher rating?
I can think of at least one book that I upgraded months later, simply because I couldn't stop thinking about the story. It was The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. I finished the book super irritated with how everything panned out, and I gave it a lower rating. I couldn't get the dang story or characters out of my head though, and later came to appreciate Russell's talented story-telling. Have any of you read it?

I usually won't rate a book I don't finish, but sometimes if I'm vaguely interested in what happens, I'll skim through it. I *think* I've rated a book I glossed over, but usually I just sort of toss it out and try to forget the whole thing.

I've downgraded books when it comes to writing reviews, I don't think I've ever upgraded - mostly because I think that sometimes I'm too generous with ratings! It's difficult if you've been sent something by a publisher or author, because you know they will see you thoughts, so writing something negative is more difficult.

I initially gave Blood Meridian four stars but it stayed with me and over the following week or so I upgraded it to a five.

I have downgraded some but also upgraded a few -- usually these grow on me as time passes, like Sabriel and The Count of Monte Cristo. (Others become more irritating with time.) It's all an attempt to apply the same standards across the board.

Audrey did you find that The Count of Monte Cristo took long to read Or did it flow pretty good? I have it as well as the three musketeers but TCOMC is like 1200 pages and is rather intimidating

I listened to it on audiobook, and it did take a while. I didn't realize it was that many pages -- I would've guessed about 700. But it's from an era where you are meant to savor the book and let the action build for a most satisfying climax. I've seen several film versions of it, and at each one, I kept thinking, 'Oh, I can't believe they left that out' or 'I can't believe they changed that,' and it made me appreciate the book more. It's good writing -- not dense or confusing or too archaic.

I need to re-read The Three Musketeers. I remember it being funny though also tragic in parts.

It is definitely one of those books that you could use to combat an armed intruder.