SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I just noticed that we can see an author's rating across all their books. Now, I would think that this rating would skew what might seem high, because presumably many of the contributing book ratings are being submitted by fans who read many of the author's books. That is to say, ppl who rated one book by an author low wouldn't even read the others, much less also rate them low.

So, Robert Charles Wilson, for example, has 3.79 overall. Considering that very few of his books are evaluated highly by the community, that seems right. Robert J. Sawyer has 3.89. Ursula K. Le Guin has 4.05 (and, btw, almost 16K followers!). Kevin Henkes has 4.13.

Thoughts? What do some of your favorite (or least favorite) authors have? Do their numbers surprise you?

Oh, good catch about how many ratings total.
I wonder if the less prolific authors would then find it easier, or more difficult, to achieve a high overall rating.

Any number crunchers out there? I like statistics... if someone else performs the analysis... ;)

Here are some overall average Goodreads ratings, with numbers of ratings, for some big bestselling authors:
- Arthur C. Clark: avg 3.97 on 1,012,107 ratings.
- Isaac Asimov: avg 4.16 on 1,833,896 ratings.
- David Weber: avg 4.13 on 452,367 ratings.
- Dan Brown: avg 3.82 on 6,468,048 ratings.
- Michael Crichton: avg 3.83 on 2,271,661 ratings.
- E.L. James: avg 3.77 on 3,395,853 ratings.

Yes, it seems that the average rating tends to go down when the number of ratings go up.

Dune = 4.22 out of 648,554 ratings · 17,892 reviews
Dune Messiah (Book 2) = 3.88 out of 114,105 ratings · 3,212 reviews

Frank Herbert = 4.09 out of 1,128,076 ratings · 28,849 reviews

makes sense especially as the number of reviews and the ratings of all the sequels are way below those of the main book

Other factors that skew this:
- how young the average reader is (younger readers give 5 stars more often)
- how well the marketing and blurb match the book's content (successfully repelling readers who wouldn't like it anyway; or attracting all kinds of people who are then disappointed when it's not what they were expecting)
- how critical the author's typical audience is on average
- if people are forced to read this author in school instead of choosing them by themselves (have a look at poor Herman Melville's rating)
- if the movie version was good or bad (because lots of people vote without having read the book)
- if the author mostly writes series (because the ratings for book 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. are generally fewer but higher due to the people who didn't like book 1 very much being gone) (exception: Dune)
... and lots of other factors. I usually don't pay attention to average ratings unless they're above 4.4 or below 3.5. The only time I find them relevant is when I know I want to read ONE book of a particular author and need help picking which one.

I’m sort of surprised at King’s rating given he has 13 million ratings. I love him but there are plenty who don’t.

One thing this might not factor in is the number of DNFs if people don’t rate what they DNF (though I know some do).

I also have to wonder, for some of these older authors especially, how many of these ratings are just people randomly marking stuff they read 10/15/20 years ago and giving it 5 stars without thinking too hard about what they might have rated it right after reading.

I like your analysis, Eva. A heartily yes on the point "did folks have to read the books in school". Literature classes ruined nearly every author except for Schiller for me. I only now come slowly back and read some of them without prejudice.

Like Eva I use the average rating if I want to select a first glimpse into the author's work.

To decide if the high rating could mirror my taste or not I nowadays use a hint Chris gave me. If a lot of positive reviews contain gifs the probability that I'm not the target audience is high.

I had a look at some of my most beloved authors. The only one where I go with the younger generation is Sanderson. He somehow managed to suck me into subgenres and tropes I usually don't read, cause he is so incredibly good.

Brandon Sanderson - av. 4,39 with 3 million ratings
Terry Pratchett - av. 4.15 with nearly 4 million ratings

Theodore Sturgeon - av. 4.05 with 80.700 ratings
Connie Willis - av. 3.93 with 195.000 ratings
Adrian Tchaikovsky - av. 4.13 with 91.600 ratings

I'm surprised by the high rating for Sturgeon, but I guess that's cause only connoisseurs read him. More often than not folks don't even know whom I'm talking about.
And I see that a lot more people have too read Tchaikovsky. He has way too few ratings.

It's well known throughout the author community that Goodreads is more critical than what you see on the Amazon ratings. I've always thought it had to do with the fact that you can leave a starred review without text on Goodreads. But I'm only speculating.

Brian wrote: "It's well known throughout the author community that Goodreads is more critical than what you see on the Amazon ratings. I've always thought it had to do with the fact that you can leave a starred ..."

I believe that you are right about the link between stars and reviews. The large majority of book ratings on GR do not have accompanying reviews. Is it because of reader's laziness or because many readers are reluctant to give their detailed opinion, or something else? I suspect that the answer would vary widely between individual readers.

Ratings without reviews in my case occur in three cases:

- it is one of those average reads (3 stars on my rating list), where I either have no emotional opinion of the book and therefore nothing to say

- it is a book with already loads of reviews and everything I would have to say has been already said a hundred times

- sometimes it is a book I didn't like, but lots of others (especially folks I know) liked. Then I feel little inclination to go on about it.

Ava wrote: "I think you're right, this is going to be a skewed sample that favors the high end..."

Actually I think it'll be skewed to high and low. I.e. people tend to rate things they love and hate. Ones they're just "meh" on they might not bother.

However, ebook readers are more probably more likely to rate all books because at the end of the read they're prompted to give a star rating and it's just so easy to tap a star and move on that probably most people do it. So, I assume in a world of digital books ratings will be more accurate.

Another thing … instead of looking at average ratings on authors (which really means very little to me), take a look at the average ratings made BY readers.

Me: 353 ratings | 40 reviews | avg rating:3.79

Michel wrote: "Brian wrote: "It's well known throughout the author community that Goodreads is more critical than what you see on the Amazon ratings. I've always thought it had to do with the fact that you can le..."

I think some people don't feel it necessary to articulate an opinion. Others do.
I don't write many reviews. I could claim that it I don't have time. But the truth is I'm too lazy. I have to feel strongly about something to bother. Some readers enjoy reviewing. I don't. I like analyzing a book. But that's only during a conversation where I can interact with others.

Michel wrote: "The large majority of book ratings on GR do not have accompanying reviews. Is it because of reader's laziness or because many readers are reluctant to give their detailed opinion, or something else?"

Or, as I just stated, ebook readers are prompted to rate the book they've just finished. One tap and they're done. They're not usually in a position to write a considered review at that moment, and unless the book was particularly good, bad, or thought provoking, most of us will move on and forget to do it (even if we kind of intended to).

Personally, I don't write reviews unless I've had a strong reaction one way or the other, or if I feel I have something worth contributing to the discussion about the book.

Most reviews are useless to me (YMMV). The majority of them are simply a summary of the story and a statement of whether the book was enjoyable or not--without any real explanation of specifically what made it so.

Micah wrote: "Ava wrote: "I think you're right, this is going to be a skewed sample that favors the high end..."

Actually I think it'll be skewed to high and low. I.e. people tend to rate things they love and h..."
Yeah. I've seen reviewers who only give books 1 or 2 stars. I want to ask them, "Have you ever read something you liked? Why do you read?"

Brian wrote: "Goodreads is more critical than what you see on the Amazon ratings"

It's been said a million times, but:

- GR ratings are pretty useless
- Everyone has a different scale they rate on
- If people rate like GR suggests, 3 stars is still "I liked it", so of course the average rating will be lower than any other site, where a 3 star rating is more an OK/meh

Anna wrote: "...3 star rating is more an OK/meh ..."

The funny thing is, my GR star ratings are on different scales from book to book!

3 stars from me can mean anything from "Yeah, that was pretty good. Enjoyable but nothing super special" to "Oh, that was disappointing coming from this author."

I never pay attention to star ratings. But, then, even my best friends who read essentially the same genres as me cannot predict what I'll like. And things they love, I'm not usually into (and vice versa) and there's almost no way of telling beforehand if we'll agree or not. So … why would I go by the opinions of complete strangers?

Micah wrote: "Michel wrote: "Most reviews are useless to me (YMMV). The majority of them are simply a summary of the story and a statement of whether the book was enjoyable or not--without any real explanation of specifically what made it so."

I rarely do plot summaries for that very reason. I tend to either be effusive with my praise or brutal in my condemnation, and I give examples.

Yeah, I wasn't talking so much about the value of GR ratings, esp. for individual books, but more of the *relative* numbers that authors seem to get.

Schoolbooks, canon, classics, yeah, eg Melville, yeah, I'd think of them differently, statistically speaking.

I like the idea of noticing whether a new-to-me author has a particularly high or low overall rating, and then looking at which books were rated more highly. I have noticed that it's not always one of the most popular books that is most highly rated.

This is interesting. I just took a look at Fredrik Backman, since I've read every book of his that has been printed in English so I thought it would be one of the easiest to compare. Inthis instance it seems to fit for me. My average rating of the 8 books I have read is 4 (4 at 4 stars, two at 5 and two at three) and his average rating over all books is 4.26. I am not usually a high book rater and give few fives-at least one of the fives I gave him was rounded up.

BUT, overall I agree with all of you who pointed out that if someone reads one book by an author and dislikes it, they normally don't read another by them. As for series, often people rate the first book the highest, but since some series start off a bit weaker, this isn't always the case.

Karin wrote: "This is interesting. I just took a look at Fredrik Backman, since I've read every book of his that has been printed in English so I thought it would be one of the easiest to compare. Inthis instanc..."
That's actually not entirely true. The first book in a series often has a lower rating. This is due to the reason you mentioned. If people don't like one book from an author, they don't read more. Book one will have more people who rate it, but didn't like it. Subsequent books are rated by people who already like the series and are more prone to giving later books a higher rating.

Brian wrote: "Karin wrote: "This is interesting. I just took a look at Fredrik Backman, since I've read every book of his that has been printed in English so I thought it would be one of the easiest to compare. ..."

Yes, I think my finders were faster than my brain today as this is the Month of Sleep Deprivation.

Brian wrote: "The first book in a series often has a lower rating. This is due to the reason you mentioned. If people don't like one book from an author, they don't read more. Book one will have more people who rate it, but didn't like it. Subsequent books are rated by people who already like the series and are more prone to giving later books a higher rating."

Or maybe the series actually gets better, the author finds their stride, the characters grow and develop, plots tighten, etc, and thus, higher ratings. I read quite a lot of series and I've found that to be the case. The first book is good, good enough for me to be interested in more, but subsequent books end up being better.

Eva wrote: "Other factors that skew this:
- how young the average reader is (younger readers give 5 stars more often)"

I don't know if I agree with this. I know quite a lot of readers, regardless of age, who know exactly what they like, and choose books accordingly, and thus give 5 stars more often than not.

I also know many readers who tend to not rate DNF books. If they don't like a book, chances are they'll just move on to another, rather than rating it poorly.

I agree with you on this though: "I usually don't pay attention to average ratings unless they're above 4.4 or below 3.5. The only time I find them relevant is when I know I want to read ONE book of a particular author and need help picking which one."

That's about the only thing that I use the average rating for - tie-breakers.

Becky wrote: "Brian wrote: "The first book in a series often has a lower rating. This is due to the reason you mentioned. If people don't like one book from an author, they don't read more. Book one will have mo..

Or maybe the series actually gets better, the author finds their stride, the characters grow and develop, plots tighten, etc, and thus, higher ratings. I read quite a lot of series and I've found that to be the case. The first book is good, good enough for me to be interested in more, but subsequent books end up being better.."

Both sound plausible to me. Practice often makes perfect (but not always). Some authors start writing so fast that they often rely on rote, standard prose because they have to push product out there. I saw that with some of Jack L. Chalker’s latter books, where his prose became repetitive. Mira Grant/Seanan McGuire seems to have hit a plateau early, with very little variation between her earliest books and more recent ones.

But for some authors, it does seem like they hone their craft and tone their storytelling muscles with each book. Ursula K. Le Guin really seemed to zero in on the poetic aspects of her prose with each outing, and Roger Zelazny brought more and more efficiency to his verbiage.

I recall watching the first few seasons of American Idol where you could see the singers get better week to week. The first few times they had raw talent but were rocky, but after a couple months they could learn and perform a song in minutes rather than days, simply because they were focusing on that skill constantly. Some writers do that, too.

That could certainly impact ratings. But typically, sales decrease as a series goes on (sell through). Unhappy readers drop off, leaving those who enjoy the books more to give ratings.

That's true. Reading a series is something of an investment, in time and money, so if you're not enjoying it, why continue? In fact, I can name a couple off the top of my head that I wish I had stopped reading much earlier than I did.

The rating of any book, after a period of volatility in the low hundreds, will decline rapidly for the first 1,000 ratings, then decline slowly for the next 10,000 ratings, and after that remain pretty much the same, give or take a 0.01 or two.

This is because the early adopters are more positive.

For the author rating this per-book effect will compete with the "loyal reader" effect where later books are bought by an audience the majority of whom may have already decided they like the author's style.

There are other factors too - if a large portion of your ratings come from your first book, say, then you miss out on a bunch of the loyal-reader bonus.

Also if you write YA or your books are popular with younger readers, you will tend to get higher ratings as young people are less jaded and are encountering ideas for the first time rather than seeing them as derivative or tired.

I have 4.12 avg rating — 313,913 ratings.

It's crept up over the years as the effect of my controversial first book is moderated by the later ones.

Mark Lawrence wrote: "It's crept up over the years as the effect of my controversial first book is moderated by the later ones."

I’m sure that the “rediscovery” of a writer kicks in for some authors, too. I’ve seen authors have that second wind years after their initial splash, the way some actors or musicians do, and the praise the second time around seems nudged a little bit higher if the work resonates.

I’m thinking in particular of people like Margaret Atwood, or John Travolta, or Aerosmith. They all had a resurgence where the second go-round was bigger than the first time. That bumps ratings up, too.

Mark Lawrence wrote: "It's crept up over the years as the effect of my controversial first book is moderated by the later ones."

I'll say it was controversial. I almost didn't finish it, but happily I went on and changed my mind about the book

That said, I've seen very few series improve after the first book and I've seen quite a few authors go downhill after their first few books like James Michener, Stephen King and Brent Weeks (liked the first series, hated the second)

Mark Lawrence wrote: "It's crept up over the years as the effect of my controversial first book is moderated by the later ones."

This makes me very curious...

Reminder that this discussion is in the Members' Chat folder, not the Author folder, so we're discussing things as readers. If anyone wants to discuss this from the author's point of view, please start a new thread in the Author folder.

Michel wrote: "I believe that you are right about the link between stars and reviews. The large majority of book ratings on GR do not have accompanying reviews. Is it because of reader's laziness or because many readers are reluctant to give their detailed opinion, or something else?"

I'll answer this one, too. Plenty of reasons.

- It's part of a series where individual volumes don't merit an in-depth review (manga, as one personal example).

- I've participated in a buddy read for the book and am all thought/talked out about it.

- I've read a few other reviews of the book and those reviews said everything I would have wanted to say, in almost the same words.

- I dun feel like it. ;)

Since this site is owned by amazon, any reviews we write are free labor for commercial interests, so we can be as "lazy" about that as we want.

to me reviews are too much like Homework aka Book Reports

I like reviewing... To me, I don't feel like I'm done with a book until I've reviewed it - even if the review is total trash. LOL I post my thoughts and opinions, nothing even close to critical analysis, but in 5 years if I want to remember what I thought of something, I at least know where my head was at with that particular book.

To be honest, I feel the same way, Becky. Especially when I'm trying to remind myself of what I thought about a book I know I've read, and find that I just threw some stars up and went on my merry way. "Darn it, me!"

I understand CB's point of view, but actually enjoy composing reviews. Ideally they'll have some kind of throughline besides "short overview of 'what the book's about,' I liked xyz, I didn't like abc, concluding paragraph." Unfortunately, I'm not often that clever.

ETA as I catch up in the conversation: I completely ignore average ratings--they mean nothing to me. Especially with a super-popular book whose rating is potentially distributed over thousands and thousands of users. I'll read friends' reviews, people I'm following, and a small handful of 2- and 3-stars on the first page--since lower scoring reviews tell me more about the book than higher ones 100% of the time. Like many other oldsters, I do not read reviews where animated .gifs take up more space than the text.

and I hate composing

CBRetriever wrote: "and I hate composing"

LOL, I feel you on that. I just usually ramble around incoherently in my reviews because of that aspect. I write technical solution documentation for my day job, so I'm not all that interested in structured reviews or critical analysis, but I like the completion aspect of writing something about what I thought or felt about the book.

(Fwiw, I review everything, and generally am more careful with reviews of DNF books (after all, I chose to read it, so why did I put it down?). I need to review to process, and to fix in memory. I don't rate DNFs.

If I read the book for group discussion, my review may simply be a link to that discussion... I think that's helpful to my followers and others who may read the review, and of course it's good for me for future reference.)

Becky wrote: "Eva wrote: "Other factors that skew this:
- how young the average reader is (younger readers give 5 stars more often)"

I don't know if I agree with this. I know quite a lot of readers, regardless ..."

I virtually never rate DNF books--I just delete them from my shelves, so this is correct.