More than Just a Rating discussion

Some people still wish we had half star ratings (or a 10 point scale, same dif.) Do you?

I most assuredly do not. In fact, I'd prefer thumbs up/thumbs down, and that's it.

But with any ratings system, it's not the number that matters. Hence the name of the group. I beg you all to write at least a sentence or two explaining your rating. If not, and you still fret, at least you can use the review space to say "this is actually a 3.5 star book for me."

But what am I missing? Why do ppl want finer granularity?

I'm not sure why one would need a 10 point scale unless one is awarding points for elements of the book and there are 10 elements considered.

Thumbs up or down would fit me better than 10 point scale.

I think of 3 terms and adapt to 5 star system.

Keep
5* Have or plan to re-read or keep for reference
4* Probably will read again or keep for reference

Keep for Now
3* May read again or pass along to particular person

Get rid of it
2* Not my thing but understand others may like
1* Disliked - a waste

That system makes sense, thanks!

I understand that a five-star system with half-star increments is de facto a ten-star system, but it would feel different to me. Why? I don't know.

Perhaps oddly, and almost certainly stupidly, I don't feel a need for half-stars for 1s, 4s or 5s, but half-stars for 2s and 3s would be useful. I find myself frequently saying "2.5 stars rounded up to 3" or "3.5 stars rounded down to 3" for my reviews, and I'd rather be able to just click that.

I also acknowledge that having half-stars could recalibrate GR's rating system to being more like amazon's. So many users on here are already in the mindset of treating books as consumer products and rating them accordingly, and I wouldn't want to see that get worse, so (shrug) in the end, whole stars is fine.

Odd but not stupid! I often waffle between 3 and 4, myself, and that's why I'd prefer to simplify it. Both would simply be a thumbs up, tyvm.

But that's why it's an interesting thing to converse about. Different readers have different ideas about evaluations.

Author complained to Goodreads about "scammer" who is "sabotaging authors" and wants them removed.

Outraged author was complaining about someone daring to rate each of the books in their series 3* and sometimes giving same 3* rating to books by other authors without reviews explaining bad rating.

3* is not a bad rating. According to Goodreads it means liked it. Most readers don't write reviews. I doubt this is ill intended.

From comments I've read many start reading a book thinking 3* (in their mind average book rather than "liked it") then go up or down depending on book.

I tend to start at 3* when it comes to new authors, potentially giving new author one more star than experienced author would get from me for same book. I think it's fair because rating indicates the chances of me reading another book by that author in that genre or series.

Good grief. No author is entitled to good ratings, nor are they entitled to an explanation for any rating at all. I don't suppose this one is crying for explanations for their five-star ratings.

Aside from thanking a reviewer sincerely, and briefly, for their review, or giving it a simple like, authors need to butt out from review spaces entirely. Reviews are how readers communicate with each other, and authors trying to control those spaces is not a good look. When those intrusions are publicized, it doesn't turn out well for them.

Beth wrote: "Good grief. No author is entitled to good ratings, nor are they entitled to an explanation for any rating at all. I don't suppose this one is crying for explanations for their five-star ratings. ..."

I can pretty much guarantee they do not want me posting a review for any book I rate 3* or less. At least that was the case in the past when I wrote more reviews.

ETA
My review of a 3* book would likely be at best only half positive. That's not what most authors want.

GR has long said that reviewers' spaces are supposed to be safe from authors' influences. I sure hope that doesn't change!

And yes, three stars is plenty, not worthy of complaint.

I'm a half-star proponent, in kind of the same way that Beth mentioned. Usually it's just a finer lean on my mid-range feelings, especially as I tend to go by the Goodreads rating definitions. Sometimes I liked a book slightly more than "liked it", but not quite "really liked it". Or maybe slightly more than "really liked it" but not quite "it was amazing".

But I don't need the clickable star options for that, as I review every book and just usually specify it in my review. And usually I only do that after the fact if my review tends to lean a bit more one way or the other and it feels like my review doesn't match the rating (to me). Like if I complain about a lot of stuff, but still rate it 3 stars, I might specify that it's a 2.5 star book in my review.

I don't start any book with any rating in mind though. I go in blank slate style (at least as much as possible), and then when I'm done with the book (whether that's when the book ends or sometime before that), I will start compiling my thoughts into a review, and usually the rating is the last thing I do depending on where I land after that whole process.

I should consider rating last myself. After all, I often do change it after writing the review.

Becky wrote: "... I don't start any book with any rating in mind though. I go in blank slate style (at least as much as possible), and then when I'm done with the book (whether that's when the book ends or sometime before that), I will start compiling my thoughts into a review, and usually the rating is the last thing I do... "

When reviewing books chosen by someone else I too would go in blank slate.

Now most of the books I read are chosen by me because I expect to like them and GR 3* is liked it.

I am definitely weird in that way, L J! I generally only want to know genre (and sometimes barely that) and general theme but I don’t want to know much more than that. Often I don’t even read book descriptions.
I trust my friends on Goodreads, so when I see them reading something that looks interesting, I’ll give it a try.

Becky wrote: "I am definitely weird in that way, L J! I generally only want to know genre (and sometimes barely that) and general theme but I don’t want to know much more than that. Often I don’t even read book ..."

I don't think that's especially weird. I spent years reading books that I didn't always choose and that I knew little or nothing about. Nothing wrong with that. It's a good way to discover new books and authors.

In my case a few years ago I took a look at how many chosen by me but unread books I had and decided to concentrate on reading what I like or at least what I think I'll like.

I just participated in a 'passport' program this summer and visited 21 other libraries in our consortium (NW Wisconsin) and came home with too many books that 'looked interesting' from each one. Some were definitely interesting, but too many really weren't worthy and, had I read reviews first, I would not have bothered trying. Still, I agree with the motto 'nothing ventured nothing gained.' And I gave the libraries a 'circulation' boost!

Also just now I learned from a random GR reviewer that they apparently start every book at five stars, and mark down from there as they encounter negatives. They rated a book five stars, saying they took off a star because something bothered them. They didn't say anything was amazing about the book.

I realized, upon reading that review, that I subconsciously start at about three stars and go up or down from that. To get more stars, it has to do something special. I think I probably, therefore, tend to rate lower.

Do you see the difference in our two approaches? Which is, or feels, more like what you do?

Cheryl wrote: "I just participated in a 'passport' program and visited 21 other libraries in our consortium (NW Wisconsin) and came home with too many books that 'looked interesting' from each one. Some were defi..."

Passport program good idea. I've been to multiple libraries in systems where I had a card. Seeing different libraries in same system is an adventure and can lead to great finds. Because of differing organization I found and checked out so many books I might otherwise have missed.

I do try to give some thought to my star ratings; I dislike grade inflation. My profile says this about star ratings:
5 stars - the book changed my life in some small or large way
4 stars - perfect or not, I still liked the book, and might read it again
3 stars - an average book; it might be good, but not too interesting to me -or- it has some flaws, but hey, don't we all; most of the books I read fall here
2 stars - the book is of little interest to me, or has flaws I can't overlook
1 star - no (zip, nada) interest to me, or the book has a hateful premise that I can't abide

So you can see that I try to start from a neutral place; I usually don't read reviews on Goodreads or anywhere else before I start a book. The greatest number of my rated books are 3 stars, and no, I don't wish for half star ratings. Because why stop there? If I'm in a whimsical mood, why not 3.44 stars? I'm pretty sure this would be a thing for me :) Instead, if I'm waffling on a rating, I'll probably make a note of why in the review.

Cheryl wrote: "Also just now I learned from a random GR reviewer that they apparently start every book at five stars, and mark down from there as they encounter negatives. ...

I realized, upon reading that review, that I subconsciously start at about three stars and go up or down...
Do you see the difference in our two approaches? Which is, or feels, more like you do."

I do see a difference in the approaches.

I guess I can see starting with five if the book is one you expect to love because of previous experience with author or series but it feels off just like starting with one would be in the other direction.

Your three star method is what I do when the book is one I expect to like due to author, genre, who recommended it, etc. Often read reviews after I finish book rating and review. My rating for each book may be lower or higher than average and sometimes changes when I re-read. Overall I probably rate most at or below their average rating.

When reading assigned book not chosen by me (challenge, group choice, etc.) I go in with no expectation even if book was award winner or bestseller. Generally I find myself rating these books a bit lower than average.

L J wrote: "Overall I probably rate most at or below their average rating...."

Oh, yes, me too. Unless some poor book got bombed for some dumb reason, I tend to love books less than the average of the community.

I find it interesting that you both start more from neutral, as I do. Maybe we have that strategy, and this group, in common for a connected reason.

(Of course I've no idea how to test that. And what about the converse? Do more ppl who aren't in this group start from the top and work down when they rate? :)

Cheryl wrote: "L J wrote: "Overall I probably rate most at or below their average rating...."

Oh, yes, me too. Unless some poor book got bombed for some dumb reason, I tend to love books less than the average of..."

I'd like to think we should be considered less lax rather than more critical.

Some authors and readers seem to feel multiple stars are deserved because author put in the effort to write the book but isn't that like saying a restaurant deserves Michelin Stars because of the effort to cook the food?

"Less lax" - ok, that's fair.

Yeah, authors. Hmpf.

Related to authors thinking high rating deserved because of the work they did writing the book.

Can Authors or Marketers Ask That Reviewers Withhold or Delay Negative Reviews
https://pagesunbound.wordpress.com/20...

I appreciate the quotes from the FTC. The argument that holds the least weight for me is that writing is hard work.

Serving customers at Taco Bell is hard work. Building highways is hard work. Raising Thanksgiving turkeys is hard work. If you're writing to earn money, stop.

Write for love - the books written because the author needed to express them are the better books.

Cheryl wrote: "I appreciate the quotes from the FTC. The argument that holds the least weight for me is that writing is hard work.

Serving customers at Taco Bell is hard work. Building highways is hard work. Raising Thanksgiving turkeys is hard work. If you're writing to earn money, stop.

Write for love - the books written because the author needed to express them are the better books."

I read once that this ^^ is the difference between "author" and "writer".

I don't entirely agree with "If you're writing to earn money, stop" though. I don't think that there's necessarily anything wrong with wanting to make money from writing books (specifically not talking about articles or journalism or other types of writing here). It's work, it's a valuable, and one could argue even necessary, product (some maybe a bit more than others, but I'm not judging)... but it is also a privilege to be able to make a living off of writing and not have to do other types of work.

Where I DO agree wholeheartedly with Cheryl is that authors claiming that writing is "hard" and that they put a lot of work into a book means that they are owed positive ratings and sales is complete nonsense.

A book is a product. Sometimes products are bad, and sales reflect that. I don't OWE Samsung a TV sale if my friend tells me theirs sucks and doesn't work, just because Samsung put effort into making it. I don't OWE a bakery a sale if I read a review online that their cakes are terrible and stale just because they put in work to bake them. If I use a product and don't like it, I do not OWE the maker of that product a false representation of its quality.

Most people have limited time and money to spend, and being manipulated into buying bad or mediocre books out of some pity party author ploy is not it. This is the kind of tactic that makes people like me avoid indie authors and ARCs entirely. Maybe that's unfair, but I'm not trying to deal with a bunch of author drama after I post an honest opinion. If authors don't want HONEST opinions of their work, then writing books for public release isn't the career for them.

Now I do agree with holding ARC reviews until closer to the actual release date, or at least boosting them ahead of release. I think that's fair. Part of the point of having reviewers read the ARC is to generate buzz, so it's fair to ask this, IMO. But asking them to withhold neutral or negative reviews completely is not OK, and I would not agree to that.

But again, I don't review ARCs or freebies from authors, so not my circus, really. Just my 2c.

Well, to qualify that statement a bit. I have reviewed ARCs before, and I do still have a NetGalley account, but I rarely use it, and when I do, it's for the books that are generally available, not needing any approval. But I am not the "reviewer" type that is being referred to in these types of debates.

Writing can be hard work. I've known authors who put in long days. Some put in those long days without days off to meet, sometimes self-imposed, deadlines.

That being said, just because someone works hard on something doesn't mean everyone has to love it.

Chef friends sometimes had me try new dishes. Creating and preparing food is hard work. I didn't always love the dishes and told them why I loved or didn't love but that's why they had me try them.

Viewed some re-decorating that horrified me. What had been warm welcoming den with golden oak stained woodwork and dark cream walls, was painted, walls and woodwork, with flat grey paint by owner. The house did sell but it was in spite of the hard work by homeowner.

Hard work alone does not guarantee praise for end result.