SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I was writing a review recently and was brought up short by the question "3* or 4*?"

It's a fair question. Some people (many Amazon reviewers) reckon three stars is a pretty bad review, but on my scale (for a general rule) if a book is only in the one-star category I probably wouldn't finish it and therefore wouldn't review it. Starting from that position, even two stars is reasonable, and anything I finish probably rates at least three. Perhaps I ought to start awarding up to 5 cowpats for really bad books (and I have tried a few, but generally not finished them - and I am not going to name them at the moment!).

Are there any formal guidelines for this? It must have come up before, but I can't find anything that makes sense. What are other reviewers doing?

I'm certainly not a formal reviewer. I'm just a regular person who likes to read. When I started rating the books I read I guess I saw it as my chance to have a say. Id also like to know if there is a formal system but my system is that most books that were ok get three stars. If I didn't like it it gets 2 and if I hated it it gets 1. If it stood out as really good for whatever reason- sometimes its the writing, sometimes I liked the story and occasionally its a literary element ir character I liked a lot it gets 4 stars. I have to think its a great book to get 5.

With that said, I look back at some of my ratings once in a while and wonder what I was thinking. So I think some of it must have to do with my mood when I finished the book. I think I may be a harsher (informal) critic than my friends who give a ton of so so stuff 5 stars.

But I'm definitely interested to see if there are formal guidelines and hear about other readers' rating systems.

my system:

*: did not finish this book.
**: finished but did not really enjoy the book.
***: a good book I enjoyed.
****: a great breathtaking book.
*****: a book I like to reread at times (a first time read does not get this score)

It really depends on my mood when I read the book...and how it makes me feel.

If I love the book but always notice the faults, it's 3 stars.

If I HATE the book (finished or no) it's 1 star. If the book has major issues that really bothered me, also 1 star.

If the book has major issues but I still finished it without hating it, 2 stars.

4 Stars - had to make me think or make me grin like an idiot. Also includes real LOL moments. And if I find a section where I HAVE to read aloud to hubby.

5 Stars are reserved for books that I adore. Simply adore. Not a lot of those. It's a hard place to be with me.

But I grade harder than most, I've been told.

Amazon's rating algorithm ignores 3-star votes, which is why reviewers there can get pretty upset with threes—especially when it's their book and they're looking to boost the recommendation engine.

I do the same as Derrick in hovering over the stars for Goodreads-approved definitions.

Daniel wrote: "Amazon's rating algorithm ignores 3-star votes, which is why reviewers there can get pretty upset with threes—especially when it's their book and they're looking to boost the recommendation engine...."


Welp, it's a good deal I don't review at Amazon. The nasty attitudes there really turn me off. I think I've posted maybe 2-3 book reviews there, period.

When I first started using goodreads, I leaned towards Amazon's star-usage - 3 was sort of average, 4 was I liked it, 5 I loved it... 2 didn't like it, and 1 was hated it.

I've been gradually moving over to goodreads' rating system - 1 is disliked, 2 is ok, 3 is liked it, 4 is really liked it, 5 is OMG Awesome!

I'm very stingy with 5-stars, and I still have a hard time with using 1-stars for not liking something instead of hating it - but I've been getting better about using them that way, so as not to demean the humble 2-star rating...

I'm extremely stingy with 5 stars too. 5 stars is the best rating a book can get. So I figure if a book is going to get a five star from me, it is going to be in the same company with my all-time favorite reads like Hamlet, The Lord of the Rings, or Dune. Under that rating scale, a book will have to knock my socks off to get a Five starer from me. Going backwards from there, only a book with a few errors gets to claim a four star. This means 3 stars is the score a good, but average book will get. 2 stars are reserved for books that are barely passable as a read. And of course, 1 star reviews go to the real stinkers. I find my own rating scale is more in synch with Goodreads' and not so much Amazon's, which doesn't allow for a more generous rating. On Amazon, there really isn't a difference between a 1 or 2 star.

I used to be more generous, but I'm very stingy with 5 stars these days too, and I follow GR more than Amazon.
1 - I hated it (I have very few 1s, since I won't review books I didn't finish)
2 - It was okay, but probably without any greater qualities/I had numerous issues with it. Beach reads tend to end up here a lot for me, because I tend to grade everything on the same scale
3 - I liked it, but had some issues with it
4 - I really liked it and would probably re-read it
5 - I loved it

1 star: I strongly disliked it or didn't finish it
2 stars: I didn't like it, but it had some redeeming qualities
3 stars: It was ok
4 stars: It was highly enjoyable
5 stars: I loved it and would highly recommend it

I find this rather frustrating since we all have our own interpretation of how to rate books on goodreads. It makes the standardised rating system far less meaningful especially when considering the overall rating of a book. However, I imagine this is an unavoidable problem. I prefer ratings that come with a review since it's easier to interpret what someone thought of a book by their review rather than a number from 1 to 5.

The goodreads scale is slanted in favour of positive opinions and I think a lot of us redefine the star system to accommodate books that we didn't hate but also didn't like.

I used to be rather stingy, but nowadays I often find myself rounding up my ratings because I start thinking oh but I give that x number of stars, surely this is better. But then again I often round some ratings down after couple of days when I have had a little time to see whther the impression the book gives lasts.

I also admit rounding up stars when I thought a book had a lot lower average rating that it deserved.

1 star - someone probably forced me to read this
2 stars - I read it, disliked some of it's aspect strongly, but liked some or slightly disliked the whole book.
3 stars - Liked it but it's in no way memorable or special.
4 stars - Enjoyed it greatly but it lacks either originality, truly memorable characters or just the *something* that makes books epic. The theme may also feel a little trivial.
5 - stars - I loved it. I want to buy this, I want my friends to read it and I want to re-read this. These books usually also have at least one character that I really love. Memorable in many ways.

Hi Everyone
And thanks for the feedback! I think my attitude had been poisoned by trying to compromise between an obviously 'slanted' Amazon system and the bit of commonsense I wanted to apply. You have given me a useful reality check
Thanks!

SSirppi wrote: "I used to be rather stingy, but nowadays I often find myself rounding up my ratings because I start thinking oh but I give that x number of stars, surely this is better. But then again I often roun..."

I love your scale! Especially the

1 star - someone probably forced me to read this

does anybody know how the goodreads software views stars. I assume that they use it to fabricate the recommendations. But do they ignore one stars, or two stars. Amazon ignores everything below 3 stars(hearsay facts)But if I give a book 2 stars, will it be a negative mark towards that book in term of recommendations? Anybody has any idea?

Star system ratings are meaningless without a review. Browse through popular books on Amazon, and most books will have some one star ratings along with some fives. It's the written review attached with those stars that matter. Some folks have a political/religious prejudice that, no matter how well written the book, they'll slam it - or praise it if it fits their prejudice.

Goodreads allows people to rate books without writing a review. So what's the point in that? I don't get this system. Explain it to me, someone that likes the Goodreads rating system.

Stephen wrote: "Goodreads allows people to rate books without writing a review. So what's the point in that? I don't get this system. Explain it to me, someone that likes the Goodreads rating system."
Not all of us want to be forced to write a long screed justifying our rating. We just want to rate and move onto the next book.

I, and I suspect many other people also, would refuse to participate in such a system and move somewhere that I could use as I want, not to suit somebody else's system. If you want to impose a compulsory reviewing regime, then set up your own site for it, please.

Stephen wrote: "Goodreads allows people to rate books without writing a review. So what's the point in that? "

It gives the book an average rating that's based on people who read the book instead of people that wrote a review. If I had to write a review for every book a lot of them might read "review review review... etc etc" and I quote exactly what I'd write.

Stephen wrote: "Star system ratings are meaningless without a review. Browse through popular books on Amazon, and most books will have some one star ratings along with some fives. It's the written review attached..."

I agree.

Case in point: I went and found "The most Anticipated Fantasy Books of 2013" list on GR. While two of them didn't even have covers yet, they were rated one star.

I would have liked to know why--did they have an ARC or are they just someone with a grudge?

Star ratings without reviews have no real meaning for me - unless I know the person.

I feel they are fine for what they are - a marker for the individual rating the book. Not for anyone else.

Personally, I've tried to start reviewing more of the books I read, simply as a reminder for myself. I'm not getting any younger...

MrsJoseph wrote: "Personally, I've tried to start reviewing more of the books I read, simply as a reminder for myself."

Hello! That's me too--I even have a shelf of "IknowIreadthisbefore" that occurs when i (accidentally) pick up a pre-GR/review book that was unmemorable.

Carol wrote: "Hello! That's me too--I even have a shelf of "IknowIreadthisbefore" that occurs when i (accidentally) pick up a pre-GR/review book that was unmemorable. "



!!! I have quite a few of these! O_o

And the worse are the books where you check GR, see a star rating but no review...or a vague "meh" review. :( I know I've read the book...I just can't remember why I (liked/loved/hated/'meh'ed) the book. *sigh*

I also pretty much ignore star ratings without reviews. I don't pay attention to the average ratings at all, either.

I do tend to sort reviews by rating, so I can read a variety from different levels, but that's pretty much the extent of how I pay attention to stars when deciding whether to read a book or not.

Carol wrote:"Hello! That's me too--I even have a shelf of "IknowIreadthisbefore" that occ..."

I guess I need to create that shelf as well . . .
In the mean time, would it be appropriate to award stars (or maybe cowpats) to books where I downloaded the free sample to my Kindle - and then after two attempts decided I didn't want to buy it (even at 99p!) and removed the sample or switched it to a 'Rejected Samples' Kindle Collection.
Or worse - one where I read the sample, decided to pay for it, and then regretted the decision and never finished the book (50 Shades of Grey!)

Alan wrote: "In the mean time, would it be appropriate to award stars (or maybe cowpats) to books where I downloaded the free sample to my Kindle - and then after two attempts decided I didn't want to buy it (even at 99p!) and removed the sample or switched it to a 'Rejected Samples' Kindle Collection.
Or worse - one where I read the sample, decided to pay for it, and then regretted the decision and never finished the book (50 Shades of Grey!) "

I do. I give stars/reviews to any book that I start to read. If I stop reading it because it was OMGWTFBBQ! then I rate it low. If I stop reading because I have a case of the book crankies...I throw it one my "DNF will try again" shelf. It's like a parking lot, lol.

Maybe it would be nice if stars without reviews could be concealed from the public if they are used for your own personal use. But they can't. Or can they?

Stars without reviews, in the public arena, are not helpful to anyone but the person who is using them as a note to themselves. It might not be a very good thing for potential readers and authors.

Stephen wrote: "Maybe it would be nice if stars without reviews could be concealed from the public if they are used for your own personal use. But they can't. Or can they?

Stars without reviews, in the public are..."

See, that's the thing with GR. GR is about selling this information...so nothing can be private. Not a shelf, not a review, not a star rating. It makes it difficult for those who are not interested in the social or sharing aspects of this site. But that's how it is.

One of my friends does not write reviews. She stars only. The stars are helpful for me because I know her...but other people? Not so much. But it doesn't bother me that she doesn't review. It's not her thing and she shouldn't be forced into reviewing just to give GR more info to sell. (Feedback often gets complaints that people should be forced to review)

I don't have anything to add to this discussion, since I never remember to add stars or reviews, but I couldn't let MrsJoseph's excellent "book crankies" go unnoticed. I was trying to explain to someone a while back why I've never bonded with anything by S. M. Stirling -- book crankies describes it perfectly!

I think individual star ratings are less meaningful, but when there are enough of them, I find the average useful as a starting point. If a book catches my eye and I see that it has 100 ratings and an average over 4, then I think chances are it's pretty good. Anything in the 3 to 4 range makes me start digging a little deeper and reading more of the middle of the road reviews.

I was thinking this morning about another flaw, at least in my opinion, with the star ratings - the lack of half-stars.

I think in half-stars, and I use half-stars - in my reviews, at least. But sometimes I round up and sometimes I round down - depending on where I feel the book falls in the spectrum. (For instance, if I would give a book 3.5 stars, but just barely, then I round down, whereas if I think the book is almost a 4 star, but doesn't quite make it, then I'll round up.)

But what this means is that I have books that are rated on my shelves as 3 stars, for instance, could be either:

1) an actual 3-star
2) a 2.5 rounded up
3) a 3.5 rounded up down

I'm sure I'm not the only one who sort of works this way.

Colleen wrote: "I was thinking this morning about another flaw, at least in my opinion, with the star ratings - the lack of half-stars.

I think in half-stars, and I use half-stars - in my reviews, at least. But ..."


I have them, too. Plus I have 3.5 rounded down.

Colleen said: I was thinking this morning about another flaw, at least in my opinion, with the star ratings - the lack of half-stars.

I'm the same way. I like the option of an inbetween rating. A little better than a 3, but not quite a 4, for example. I know the issue has been debated ad nauseum here and elsewhere. Apparently more people prefer not having the half-stars so I just adjust.

MrsJoseph wrote: "I have them, too. Plus I have 3.5 rounded down."

Derp on me - that's what I meant. ;)

(Fixed it.)

Tad wrote: "Apparently more people prefer not having the half-stars so I just adjust. "

I think the last poll showed it was roughly half and half, but goodreads has basically said it would require them to redesign the whole database, so it's not gonna happen.

Tad wrote: "I think individual star ratings are less meaningful, but when there are enough of them, I find the average useful as a starting point. If a book catches my eye and I see that it has 100 ratings an..."

Tad, i agree with this a lot - individual ratings that are stars only without reviews are indeed close to useless...but the AGGREGATE of stars is meaningful. only a handful of ratings? well, that's just the author's friends and enemies putting something out there. but a few hundred reviews start to get a crowd-think opinion in there.

Colleen & MJ, YES YES YES i would love some half stars. the book i just read is absolutely a 4.5 star book for me - i totally loved it, i have been gushing about it to random coworkers, it's a really good book...with a sorta cliffhanger ending (and those drive me BATTY). so it's not perfect, and i'm stingy with the 5 star ratings, myself, but it's better than a 4, IMHO.

my star system is focused around a 3, i suppose (so it's very interesting to find out that amazon's algorithm basically ignores those, eh?). 3 stars is dead middle of the road: it's an average book. there's no glaring flaws so obnoxious to distract me out of the story, but there's likely not much in the way of transcendently amazing going on, either. i don't have to force myself to soldier on through it, but i'm not desperate to get home from work so i can pick it back up again, either. it's a pleasant way to spend my time (i mean, geez, we're reading for fun, right?), but it's not necessarily going to linger in my mind for months or change the way i think or see the world. it's entertaining and enjoyable, but not MORE than that.

the basic flaw in my head for star ratings is the perceived "quality". if i read a trashy romance novel that ends up being an utterly sublime example of the genre, better than 99% of all other trashy romance novels i've ever read, it gets 5 stars for being awesome fun. but that certainly doesn't mean that it's as GOOD or IMPORTANT as, say, a richly profound thought exercise by Ursula LeGuin that i also gave 5 stars to. the fact that star ratings level all nuances of quality and impact into a flat line makes my eye twitch.

I'm having difficulty understanding why people can't simply follow the guidelines which pop up when you hover over the stars: 1 means "didn't like it", etc.

Imposing your own values on the stars makes for two problems: first it invalidates the aggregate score if the components do not have consistent values; second, you have to explain your rating "system" on each and every review or else nobody will understand that you are not following the guidelines.

Being an individual is all very well, but if you want your own rating system, why not set up your own blog where you can set the rules consistently?

Colleen wrote: "
I think the last poll showed it was roughly half and half, but goodreads has basically said it would require them to redesign the whole database, so it's not gonna happen."

Huh. I wonder how FUBARed their DB is...If they for some reason went with the actual values 1-5 in the DB (as opposed to a more sensible 100-500 or 1000-5000), surely it's a db script away to multiply with 100 and then add 150, 250 etc. + modify the system itself to divide by 100 (or 1000) if needed for the individual books. Eh, sorry, professional curiosity. ;)

I rate on a half star scale as well, and imported my library from LibraryThing, who allows half stars, which didn't go so well...

Michelle wrote: "the basic flaw in my head for star ratings is the perceived "quality". if i read a trashy romance novel that ends up being an utterly sublime example of the genre, better than 99% of all other trashy romance novels i've ever read, it gets 5 stars for being awesome fun. but that certainly doesn't mean that it's as GOOD or IMPORTANT as, say, a richly profound thought exercise by Ursula LeGuin that i also gave 5 stars to. the fact that star ratings level all nuances of quality and impact into a flat line makes my eye twitch."

True. I do rate across the board though, so even good fluffy stuff will probably only get 3-3.5 tops, in comparison with LeGuin's 5. ;)

Evilynn wrote: "Huh. I wonder how FUBARed their DB is...If they for some reason went with the actual values 1-5 in the DB (as opposed to a more sensible 100-500 or 1000-5000), surely it's a db script away to multiply with 100 and then add 150, 250 etc. + modify the system itself to divide by 100 (or 1000) if needed for the individual books. Eh, sorry, professional curiosity. ;) "

Over the years of watching the Feedback thread, I've gathered that a) either the database is entirely FUBARed and just designed really badly or b) they just use that as the go-to excuse for anything they don't want to do.

Phil wrote: "I'm having difficulty understanding why people can't simply follow the guidelines which pop up when you hover over the stars: 1 means "didn't like it", etc.

Imposing your own values on the stars makes for two problems: first it invalidates the aggregate score if the components do not have consistent values; second, you have to explain your rating "system" on each and every review or else nobody will understand that you are not following the guidelines.

Being an individual is all very well, but if you want your own rating system, why not set up your own blog where you can set the rules consistently? "

Because the system they have doesn't work for me?

Because everyone has their own system for the most part?

Also, I do have my own blog as well. And I use half stars there.

Colleen wrote: "Over the years of watching the Feedback thread, I've gathered that a) either the database is entirely FUBARed and just designed really badly or b) they just use that as the go-to excuse for anything they don't want to do. "

Why am I leaning towards both A and B?

MrsJoseph wrote: "Why am I leaning towards both A and B? "

You're probably not wrong to.

MrsJoseph wrote: "Why am I leaning towards both A and B? "

Because it's probably true? ;) Making DB changes are generally a bit of a pain (needing time off line or a lot of hassle), but it's one of those things you want to fix sooner rather than later... Oh well.