I sometimes struggle with the star ratings too. I will sometimes leave the stars blank, and write my rating in the review below, with my reasoning. Or put the stars at what i consider the "target audience" rating, or my "generous" rating, but write my personal rating in the review below (so, for your Marvin K Mooney example, give it 4 or 5 stars, as the kids you know would, but explain in the writing place how you actually feel about it). (I don't know if a blank star rating affects a books average rating the same as a "low" star rating does, or if it just doesn't get factored in.)

None of which is at all to say you should do that, but more to say, I hear you, and have the same problem, and if this helps, here's what I do sometimes to work around it!:)

I find it's mostly authors who think 2 stars is a slam, although that my just be my perception. I rate pretty much according to GR's definition, 2 stars for me means "It's ok".

And typically I rate according to what I think. Even for children's books. If I have information that actual kids I know feel differently I'll usually point that out in my review. Except books I only read due to reading them with a kid. Like my Captain Underpants review. Wasn't a book I picked to read myself, and I had some issues with it, but hey, kids love it and it often works for reluctant readers. In that case I rated it higher, due to the magical factor with reluctant readers, but noted my issues in my review.

I don't write reviews for most books, just when I feel I have something I want to say. So, I have a lot of ratings with no reviews.

Bottom line - rate/review how you want and be honest. That's what matters :D

Giving stars or points is in many cases a purely subjective way of showing appreciation. Some people like book x a lot, give it only 3 stars, others would give it 5. Why then only 3, if you liked it so much? Perhaps these people attach a different interpretation to the number of stars. Why rate a book, CD, whatever, 7.5/10 and not 8/10, for example? Why 7.5 and not 7.8?

"But if I give a book two stars, some people regard that as a slam." That's where reviews come in, because then you can (but you're not obliged, of course) indicate why the book deserved (in your opinion, obviously) only two stars.

Or, as Alexandra wrote: "rate/review how you want and be honest." :)

I actually read both sides of reviews when looking at books. I will purposely search out 1 and 2 star reviews. Why? Because sometimes the things that people hate about a book are the exact reason I love it.
Same with 4 and 5 star reviews, the reason someone loves a book may be the exact reason I DON'T want to read it!

I need both the lower and higher star reviews if I'm humming and hawing about a book. 3 stars doesn't do much. (For me, anyway).

I have been very lax in writing my reviews up lately, need to get on that. I have rated a few books 2 stars recently and need to explain my reasoning behind it!

I'd appreciate a system that asked "where would you stack this on your shelf" e.g. I like The Grinch more than One Fish, Two Fish but less than Green Eggs and Ham.

With enough virtual shelves and considering that the rankings change over time as tastes change this would make for a better rating system.

Robin Bo wrote: "I actually read both sides of reviews when looking at books. I will purposely search out 1 and 2 star reviews. Why? Because sometimes the things that people hate about a book are the exact reason I..."

I agree, I do the exact same thing.
I also find stars without a written review pretty pointless. The stars guide the eye but the valuable information is in the written review.

@Robin Hobb: I had a difficult decision with a couple of classic books recently (a Jane Austen and a James Baldwin). In both instances the books were intelligent, well written, and consciously delivered the points they were making.
But I didn't enjoy either of them.
With Austen, it was a gift and I don't like romances - so I knew it probably wasn't for me but could appreciate the social context and the craft. For Baldwin, it was beautifully written but so damn depressing.

So they both got 2 stars, not because they weren't good books but because I didn't enjoy them. And I explicitly said this in my review. Not every work stands the test of time, and some books I enjoy now (late 20's) I will likely not enjoy in my 50's.
I think it's disingenuous to give something 3 stars when you don't think it was 3 stars. If you're worried about it being interpreted the wrong way, then just write a clear review :)

I imagine it's a little more complex for an author - ratings play a big factor in sales (especially if you're new/unknown), and you don't want to make enemies in your field. Anything that can be misconstrued as a feud can hit social media quick, which has the potential to negatively impact you.

For me, I take a book's success into account when rating. If I didn't enjoy something so much by an author still getting their foot in the door, I'll only rate it if I can genuinely give it three stars or more. Anything less, and I shelve without a rating.

But if we're dealing with someone like J.K. Rowling or Stephen King, my one/two star review isn't going to have any impact on their dreams whatsoever so I'll be more open there.

Maybe that's too sympathetic, but it's how I roll. If I was a working author, I would probably shelve things I didn't love without a rating just to avoid conflict. Authenticity is important to me, so I couldn't give a higher rating than I can genuinely stand behind.

Jeremy wrote: "I imagine it's a little more complex for an author - ratings play a big factor in sales (especially if you're new/unknown), and you don't want to make enemies in your field. Anything that can be co..."

Excellent point Jeremy! I imagine it would have different implications for an author to rate something and a book reader.

I try to qualify my reviews by saying something like "I may not be in his/her target demographic." That happened with the bizarro fiction I read. The fans love it: 5 stars! I could see there were good ideas popping up from time to time, but it was hard to get over the painful plotting, inconsistent characterizations, poor spelling, and other grammatical stuff. Honesty, while it may not always be appreciated, is the best road; but sheer meanness is not a viable critiquing method.

Ratings are complicated... a 3 star review from someone that averages 4.25 is a lot worse than from someone who averages 3.25... the same is true in the other direction... but finding out user's average ratings all the time requires a lot more page loads...

Well, I read your explanation behind your rating on your bio a few years ago, so I've never had the impression that you slam books.

That being said, I'm a total pushover. I give most books 4-5 stars, and anything under 3 is basically me slamming them, haha!

I give this post 4 stars.

The biggest danger of low star ratings on GR is that, most specifically authors, you can then become a hate target for anyone who disagrees with your opinion. Childish, but it happens. I really don't understand why we can't have a world where we can be honest, and live and let live. We don't all have the same tastes!

There are some authors who don't care and are just honest anyway, but being honest isn't "slamming" either a book or an author, IMO - it's just being honest. There are many books I dislike, and many I love. I rarely actually give a one or two-star review, personally. But I do say what I think, in as non a hateful way as I can.

Susie wrote: "...but being honest isn't "slamming" either a book or an author, IMO - it's just being honest."

Exactly. It's not vindictive to say you don't like something. Books are one of the most subjective things out there. If you're worried your rating is going to be misconstrued, then explain it.
A world of middling 3 stars is next to useless.

Robin Bo wrote: "I actually read both sides of reviews when looking at books. I will purposely search out 1 and 2 star reviews. Why? Because sometimes the things that people hate about a book are the exact reason I..."
I do the same thing.

I am honest with reviews. I try to write them... Of course, I only read what I want to read, there are very few people who can recommend a book to me. My daddy was one I trusted. When I was a kid he pushed me to read White Fang. I didn't want to, but when I did? Man, it was great! Well, I just think you should be honest with your stars. Not everyone is going to like a book, even if it's a bestseller.

I post a review whether I liked the book or not, and I give it the rating I felt it deserved. As with others above, I read one star reviews - it's useful to judge whether the rating seems fair.

As a writer, I am of course hurt by one star reviews, but if they're fair, they don't bother me - that's what the person genuinely felt. What does bother me are the one star reviewers who either clearly didn't read the book, or have given it that rating for some personal philosophical reason that has nothing to do with the writing. Those are the reviews that, as a reader, I ignore.

This thread is the exact reason that I know and TAKE NOTICE, over time of how my GR friends (authors too) rate books they read. For me, I feel nearly quite the opposite, different than Robin Hobb. Without the full spectrum of your like or dislikes for a read, I don't get your particular nuance of "BEST" or "WORST" either. If you read enough in numbers and long enough in years, you are certainly going to hit books "not for me". Then PLEASE, say that, or rate them for SPECIFIC reasons. I need your take on reaction, not a synopsis. Those are the reviews I seek out. Continuously too and not just for the people who agree with me upon any particular genre, policy, belief system or worldview etc. I do NOT want to be one of the "flock" just because everyone else enjoyed it or liked it. Sometimes I just don't. Or do I want to be too nice to recognize other levels of boredom or disinterest in a particular book either. Just like a former poster, I always seek out the 1 or 2 stars to see "why". Most often it is after I've read it, I must admit.

Because I rarely give 5 stars, they mean something special for those books. There IS a level that is above the select, there absolutely is for me. Rarely do I take into serious vetting consideration some loved friend's recs who gives everything 4 or 5 stars routinely. They are just too easily pleased. I am not. I want to be pushed to be pleased. There are some tremendous writers who arrive all the time and do just that.

So if you have a specific reason for 1, 2 or 3 stars- I always like to hear them. And read "outside your pleasing" box once in awhile. Please do. I'm old and I know that it is worth the putrid pick once in awhile. Just my two cents before 2018 starts. Too nice is too nice and it makes all superlative writing become diminished, IMHO, when everyone rates every Tom, Dick and Harry thriller or whatever 5 stars for just the enjoyment factor. And if you can on your profiles, please POST what makes a 5 star for you, what a 4, what a 3 etc. There is TONS of dreck being published and self-published presently.

So if you have a specific reason for 1, 2 or 3 stars- I always like to hear them. And read "outside your pleasing" box once in awhile...."

Here, here!

I generally rate then review books I've read. In my reviews I mention initial throughts, what I liked, what I didn't like, and whether I'd recommend it. In some cases I'd rate a book 4/5 starts because I like the author and I've been anticipating the book and "yeay I read it!" and "Wow! That was good!" But once I start writing the review I sometimes have a long list of things I didn't like and then I wonder "Why am I giving it a 5 or a 4?" Similarly, I've given books 3 stars and fond that there wasn't really anything I didn't like everything was just OK and my What I didn't like section is a sentence or two but I give it a 3 or 2 stars. In that case I'd recommend it to an audience who may enjoy the book. And I always mention my bias toward an author or series.

Sometimes I struggle rating books since they are either borderline between ratings or sometimes I feel kind of bad about not liking a book as much as I thought I would or should have. I have just become active on goodreads over the past few months and have been going through and adding and reviewing some of the books I have read for the books that I read years ago that I have added I have only given it star ratings due to its been several years since I read the book but remember that I liked it x amount but unable to comment further due to it being fuzzy. For books that I have read since becoming active I do leave reviews about them and usually will put why I gave it the rating I gave it. My hope with my reviews is that if the author reads it, especially if they are a member here, is that they take it as a bit of creative criticism, especially if its a 3* or lower to keep it in mind when they are writing in the future to try and improve their books so that they would be more enjoyable to read. I have my normal genres & authors I tend to stick to but I do step out of that now & then if a book sounds interesting enough and just because I give a low rating on a book doesnt mean I wont read something else by that author in the future just means I thought that book could have been better.

I award stars according to how I feel about them, not what the "target audience" might think. That's why most of my reads end up with 3 stars; I liked it. 4 and 5 stars are much scarcer in my world. I have to really be amazed with the world or characters, etc. But if you see that I've given a 4 or 5 you know it's been really enjoyable for me! I do give 2s when I kind of go "eh." I've also given out a few 1s.
Some of my ratings are given after the fact; it might be something I read in 1968, etc. So I rate according to what I remember my feeling was then... I might have loved it as a teen, but if I re-read it now it may be rated lower. If I can't remember whether I liked something or was ambivalent, it usually gets a 3.
Do what your heart tells you... not what everyone else thinks.

I usually go by a 60-100% or letter grade scale. I did not realize I shouldn't!

***** - 100% - A+
**** - 90% - A-
*** - 80% - B-
** - 70% - C-
* - 60% - D-
0-50% - F

the thing is, most places/businesses rate the star system from 1-5 bad to excellent, meaning one or two stars are bad (would you stay in a one star hotel?). And let's not pretend these comments and rating do not have sales value. If Robin Hobb an twenty other people gave five stars to a book, I 'll definitely buy it, but I will pass a two star book.

All of us look for different things in a book. To tell you the truth, I read 5 reviews and 1-2 reviews with a grain of salt. But their reasons for looking or hating the title will help me decided if I judge on the same things. I find the 3-4 ratings more even-handed sometimes. Actually, the composite rating is more telling for quick decisions; if it's a 1-2, that doesn't sound promising. If it's above 4, it sounds like it's universally well-liked, as a rule of thumb.

Any book that had a 2 star average rating would likely be horrible (or only have few ratings), even going below 3 stars would be a bad sign so going by how it is actually used 2 stars lowers the average of any okay book, few use goodreads definition for their stars. The actual reviews can overwrite that but I usually look at the average and a handful of reviews not all of them so that isn't reliable since it might not be read. I just settled on giving almost everything I liked 4-5 stars and tagging stuff with a number on a ten point scale for my own use.