The Extra Cool Group! (of people Michael is experimenting on) discussion

Here's one of the few things that annoys me about GR: the ability to leave a rating of "1" without explanation. As a reader, this frustrates the heck out of me. "Why?" I want to yell at that smug little singular star. "What does this mean?"

I think if you're going to leave such a strong statement, you should have the huevos to back it up.

I have only one 1 on my shelves. If I can finish a book then I normally give it at least a 2 if I didn't care for it. The fact that I finished it says much for me. But the one 1 I have is a short story that I struggled through and made no sense to me. I kept reading to see if it would give an explaination so I could understand what was going on. If I don't finish a book I won't give it a rating.

*nods* A good rule of thumb. I have no problem with a book receiving a 1, just with there being a rating and no review. Give me something, a single sentence, a handful of words, to say why the experience was so bad.

Was it the topic? The content? The use of purple wolverines? Just hitting something with a low rating and running seems... well, it seems to defeat the purpose of GR.

I have one star books, but most of those I read a while ago and can't really provide a decent review of now without re-reading.

What Ala said, but I have star ratings on a lot of books without reviews. I added over 1000 my first year here.

Most of my 1-star ratings for books read before I started writing reviews have no accompanying explanation. If I had to write one to characterize most of them, it would be "Poorly written or predictable and therefore tedious or boring." There are some exceptions; for example, I just don't like Lestat.

I've starred and reviewed every book I've read since 1/1/07, and those 1-star reviews typically get a longer review than "Trite; sucked."

I should say, too, that I am proudest of some of my 1-star reviews because I don't want to be insulting but do want to articulate clearly why I gave such a low rating. My review of In the Wake of the Plague: The Black Death and the World It Made is a good example of the effort I put into this.

Shoshana - this is excellent! Just what the reader needs to see when that 1 star comes up. Your reasons are well cited from the work itself and your arguments are clear and concise, though thorough. Probably more informative than the book.

Yes, Jim, me, too. When I first joined, being techno-challenged, I had some trouble figuring out HOW to post a review. Ahem. So my first slew of ratings were only ratings, as well. Not since I figgered the darn buttons out.

I'm not generally techno-challenged, but time & memory were big factors.

Shoshana, that was a good review & just what I needed to know. I'm especially disappointed when a factual book purports to cover a topic & then fails. I wasn't as thorough as you were on my review of Silent Witness: How Forensic Anthropology Is Used to Solve the World's Toughest Crimes, but felt much the same way.

Thanks, Angel and Jim. That means a lot.

Shoshanapnw wrote: "I should say, too, that I am proudest of some of my 1-star reviews because I don't want to be insulting but do want to articulate clearly why I gave such a low rating. My review of [book:In the Wak..."

That's a splendid review. I think you are one of the best reviewers on GR and always look forward to reading your latest ones.

*Scuffing foot* Thanks.

I've not yet rated anything a 1. Although I've read 1 star books in the past, before joining GR. Like that Dave Eggers book about being a Staggering Genius, I'd give that shit 1 star. But so far it hasn't happened. I guess I've just been choosing better books since I've joined GR, and the 1 star just hasn't been needed. Even 2 stars is pretty bad for me, and I usually leave an explanation. But 2 star isn't outright hate... just dislike.

Using GR's star system, one star signifies that you didn't like the book. There's no 0 or rating labeled "made me want to go postal on the writer's/editor's ass."

Shoshanapnw wrote: "Using GR's star system, one star signifies that you didn't like the book. There's no 0 or rating labeled "made me want to go postal on the writer's/editor's ass.""

That's a shame. Occasionally there are books that deserve a negative number.

I agree, just as some students should receive an H or G rather than an F.

I suppose one could give a book a negative number in the comments - just as many folks qualify the star ratings otherwise. As in - "this is really a 3.5" or "2.987" or "this one goes up to 11"

Like Jimmy, I think I've become more careful in my reading - I read the types of books I enjoy or do a bit of research before purchasing (too poor to waste funds on a bad book :D )

Shoshanapnw wrote: "I agree, just as some students should receive an H or G rather than an F."

We used to get number grades on tests & as final grades on the report card at one school I went to. I preferred it to the letter grades.

I love a good one star review. As a side note if I hate a book I don't want to give it to Oxfam (the charity) as I do with books I don't want to keep in case someone actually buys and reads it. But I don't want to chuck it in the bin either, that's just gross. Dilemma!

Paul wrote: "As a side note if I hate a book I don't want to give it to Oxfam (the charity) as I do with books I don't want to keep in case someone actually buys and reads it. But..."

Solution: Turn it into pencils

Paul, put it through a paper shredder and feed it to your compost worms. They'll love you for it, poison ink and all.

as far as negative or one-star reviews go, i just don't have a lot of interest or energy writing them. what's the point? the one-star books often make me feel like i wasted my time anyway. i do write them of course, but they tend to be brief. i'd much rather talk about something i'm excited about than go on about something i found to be irritating, boring, or offensive. same goes for music. and movies. and restaurants! especially restaurants.

I prefer to spend enough time to list major pet peeves that ruined a book for me. What peeves me now often doesn't bother others & vice versa. One of the great things about GR friends is we share common likes & dislikes, so I'll specifically mention things that I know matter to my friends.

For instance, folks that don't know anything about horses often don't mind the liberties that so many fantasy writers take with them, while I just can't ignore them. I hate it when horses are ridden as if they're cars with hooves or whinny because their rider jerks on their reins.

Sometimes there are specific actions that are just so ludicrous that it ruins the story. Robert Jordan has an archer stick his bow in between the girth & horse while riding along in Lord of Chaos. The horse didn't mind & no one else seemed to think it was odd. Right.    (Actually, I didn't read the series, but my wife did. She threw that book across the room & was upset with the world for quite a while.)  
;-)

Anyway, I can see not wasting too much time on a poor review, but listing a few of the more obvious faults is often important to the rest of the world, so I try to say more than, "This book sucks."

I do understand the feeling of being so disgusted that you don't want to put energy into a bad review - but even a brief one is worth the effort. It's at least a cathartic exercise and may save the unsuspecting GR friend from a bad decision and buyers remorse.

Though the compost worms will be happy...

Jim, I feel the same way about psychology. A distressing number of writers think you can just slap together a random set of bizarre thoughts and behaviors. However, actual humans tend to have constellations of related psychological issues. Also, the triumphant revelation that the narrator/protagonist was crazy! is not a sufficient for whatever it is supposed to explain.

Ala wrote: "Solution: Turn it into pencils."

That is so incredibly cool. If I hadn't been seduced by the mechanical pencils of the world, I would absolutely look into that.

I enjoy giving bad reviews just as much as giving good ones--if a book was a waste of my time, I want to be especially clear in saying why. I can drool all over a book by Toni Morrison or Margaret Atwood, and say they write amazingly, but it's just as valid to me when someone discourages a writer like Ann Coulter or....uhhh.....other sucky writers....from being read.

first. I totally agree on the psychology pet peeve, so if there are any specific books you think I should avoid let me know.

I actually do rate books I haven't finished, if I don't intend to read anymore of them. I have a different shelf for books I intend to finish just not any time soon. But they usually get 3 stars and I say I didn't finish them and why I didn't finish them. Mostly because books I didn't finish tend to very long books that I enjoyed, but at some point felt like I stopped getting anything out of. For example, I hit a point in magic mountain where I could predict he ending and I felt like the book just kept going and going and going, and I didn't really want to read it anymore. At that point I generally feel like I will dislike a book more if I continue to read it. so I stop and say how I feel about it at he point I stop. I know this bothers some people, but I also know people who read the way I read and I think it's worthwhile to say, try this even if you don't finish it the part you read will be great.

also, I have re-evaluated the star system for me 1 star means hate, 2 stars mean dislike, I know this is wrong according to good reads I don't care.

I have a good number of one star ratings, the ones that don't have reviews are things that I read for school. I do agree that I hate one star ratings without reviews, so I might have to write some.

I don't judge people who rate books 1 stars, with no review, but I feel it's necessary to say why I gave a book one star. I rarely ever give one star rating, so I had to feel strongly to do so.

Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "I don't judge people who rate books 1 stars, with no review, but I feel it's necessary to say why I gave a book one star. I rarely ever give one star rating, so I had to feel strongly to do so."

Right. It's not a matter of judging, so much as the feline aspect of my personality that bristles at the lone, unaccompanied star. I'm too damn curious for my own good - I want to know why? why? why?

actually I am more annoyed with 3 star ratings without reviews. cause it's never totally clear if 3 is. "It was good I'd recommend it but I"m not jumping up and down" or "it was fine"

If I give a book a 1-star it means I thought it was poorly written crap. I don't mean that someone else might like it but it wasn't for me (that would be at least a 2-star rating). I mean I am seething with disugst and annoyance that the author (and editor and publisher) felt this was worthy of publishing.

If it gets a review it is only because I want to vent my anger. If I do not write a review I think that that alone should speak volumes, the author should not be audacious enough to want more from me.

Jasmine wrote: "actually I am more annoyed with 3 star ratings without reviews. cause it's never totally clear if 3 is. "It was good I'd recommend it but I"m not jumping up and down" or "it was fine""

Don't they both mean the same thing?

Why are folks bothered by a one-star rating sans review but not a five-star rating sans review? Is one star that much stronger of a statement than five stars?

Incidentally, I find one-star reviews are the most fun to write and often are among my best reviews.

5-star reviews are great. You are trying to explain why you think other people should read it. You are convincing them to read a book that they otherwise had not considered, or to bump a book to the top of their reading list.

A lot of folks tend to be pretty easily pleased and will give out 5 star reviews like candy, while 1 star reviews are a rarer breed.

I've come across only a handful of 1 star reviews on the books I've looked at to read here, while simultaneously coming across more 5 star reviews then there are actual stars in the sky.

I guess it's just easier to say, "hey, I like this because..." and feel all warm and fuzzy instead of "hey, this sucks so god damned much because... and I want to burn this book and the author, rain hellfire down upon them, and tear this world asunder for this crime against literature".

While the 5 star review may be a bit helpful in deciding to read a book or not, a lot of times it's just gushing. A 1 star review with a complete tear-down of the book? Far more useful in the decision making process.

So having a 5 star with no review is no big loss. But a 1 star sans review? Welp...

I have no 1 star reviews. But that's not because I won't give them. I am just holding out for that book that really pisses me off. The thing is, I know my own tastes pretty well by now. So I will often not read something that I know I won't like at all. And even if I do happen to read one, I have no qualms about not finishing a book if I really don't like it. And I don't like reviewing or giving star ratings to books I don't finish. So it might be that I will never have a 1 star review. Who knows? I have a handful of 2 star reviews, which in essence means "I really disliked this book, but I can still see why some people might like this." But a 1 star review, if I ever give one, will mean "I hated it and don't see why anybody can think otherwise"

Jimmy wrote: "I have no 1 star reviews. But that's not because I won't give them. I am just holding out for that book that really pisses me off. The thing is, I know my own tastes pretty well by now. So I wi..."

I like the way you think. Last year, out of 117 books, I handed out 5 one star ratings, all for that very reason.

It's funny to me how differently the rating system is perceived and used here on GR. I'm more likely to hand out 1-stars to books that fall within my reading interests, because I care about whatever subject/genre, and I can work up real anger about not liking the book. I tend to be more lenient with stuff, like mysteries, that I don't really care about.

I do have a few friends who hand out 5-stars very, very rarely, and when they do, I sit up and take notice. If they don't review, I'll bug them. A cool feature of GR is the rating frequency box, to be found just under a person's profile picture. It lists the number of ratings for each star with a little bar graph. You can get a real feel for how people rate based on this box. I don't even mean this to sound bitchy, but it is a little, but when I see all 5-stars in that box, I know I can pretty much ignore what the reviewer says. Everything you read cannot be amazing.

Ceridwen wrote: "A cool feature of GR is the rating frequency box, to be found just under a person's profile picture...."

I only see an average rating. For instance mine says 1660 ratings (3.30 avg). Could it be the browser? I'm using Firefox 3.6.

Jim, click on the average rating (like actually click on the 3.30 number) and you'll see it.

Dawn wrote: "Jim, click on the average rating (like actually click on the 3.30 number) and you'll see it."

What Dawn said.

Oh, also, there's a stats button under your shelves - click that and you can sort your review ratings by recommended by, year, etc. It's pretty great.

Ah! Thank you. You'd think after a few years here I'd think to look for hidden links. I didn't. That is very cool & helpful.

I liken the rating system to love. It is a word that can vary in intensity depending on how it is applied. I love my husband, my daughter, that new shirt that I bought and I would love a cup of tea...

They all get 5-stars but I am not honestly comparing my husband to a new pair of shoes. Likewise I can love (5-stars) Emily's Quest but I am not implying that it should be compared to To Kill a Mockingbird.

5 - I loved <>
4 - I liked <>
3 - I didn't mind <>
2 - I wasn't too fussed on <>
1- I didn't like <>

I'm definitely in the "easily pleased" category... kinda. I do have pretty high standards for my 50-page test, so to get that far a book really has to have my attention. I don't give 1-star ratings because I don't finish books that I would only give 1 star to. I'm pretty stingy with my 5-star ratings, too, although I've caught myself giving out more than I should.

I rarely give out a single star, but that is because the books I read are not selected randomly. A book has to at least look interesting before I invest hours of my life reading it. So I tend to wind up rating mostly 3s and 4s with a reasonable smattering of 5s.