More than Just a Rating discussion

Does anyone else find they are harsher in rating than when they first started rating? More books on the Do Not Finish list?

I find that for myself. The first one was never intended, but I just see that in my ratings over the years. The second is that, as I have found more great books, it’s not worth finishing a book that I don’t like.

I definitely have over the years here. More practice reading carefully (in order to write public reviews) means that I have less patience with weaker books, and I will either rate them lower than I might have earlier, or dnf very readily.

In fact, I once went back and looked at a few dozen of the first books I reviewed here, and knocked a star off of a bunch of them.

Michelle wrote: "Does anyone else find they are harsher in rating than when they first started rating? More books on the Do Not Finish list?

I find that for myself. The first one was never intended, but I just see..."

I don't know that I have become harsher so much as I am taking a chance on more unknown to me authors because it is easier for me to do that now.

If I have a chance to read several books from hoopla by author I often see recommended but that none of my real life friends have read I'll often try more than one and may give all low ratings. In the past it probably would have been one and done so instead of several low rating books there would have been one.

Sometimes when I re-read I lower the rating I initially gave a book, sometimes I raise the rating but usually my rating remains the same.

I’m glad it’s not just me. I felt mean. I find myself thinking, “Is this fair to the author?” This is especially true if it’s in a new genre. Maybe I just don’t like the genre and have not realized it. However, I do sometimes find a gem in a genre I tried, and that gives me hope.

On the flip side, I found I have also changed ratings for previous books because I went too easy on favored genres.

For this reason, I do try to rate within the genre and sub-genres. I also take in consideration themes (or tropes if you prefer) outside of the genre. If it’s a popular theme, the author better do it well to get their stars.

The more I read, the more I feel that it was done better elsewhere, and the less patience I have overall.

Michelle wrote: "I’m glad it’s not just me. I felt mean. I find myself thinking, “Is this fair to the author?” This is especially true if it’s in a new genre. Maybe I just don’t like the genre and have not realized..."

I agree on considering genre. I also consider what the author says about the book, including genre and characters. Books not as described will lose at least 1 or 2 stars.

That’s a good point LJ. Unfortunately, a lot of author’s notes don’t get put into audiobooks. I wish they did because it helps, though not necessarily in a good way.

During my years on GR, my overall ratings have gone up; and I know the reason why.

When I first joined, I was participating in a lot of group reads and reading a lot of recommended books. Most of the one and two star reviews were the result of reading books chosen by others.

Now I don't do group reads and I only read a recommended book if it was personally recommended by someone who is familiar with my tastes.

As a result, I'm rating most of the books I read with three or more stars.

Absolutely!! I have thought on this often. I think the more we read, the better we become at judging what is good writing and quality stories. The more books we read, the greater experience we get at seeing the differences. I also notice the more books I read the less patience I have with books that have the same storyline as other books have. If I read the same basic story over and over, my ratings inevitably go down. Sometimes I feel bad because it isn’t the author’s fault hers was the fifteenth book with this storyline I’ve read and not the first!

Goodreads ratings are subjective based on how much reader likes a book. It seems reasonable ratings would change, going higher as reader finds favorites and lower as reader explores new authors and genres.

L J wrote: "I also consider what the author says about the book, including genre and characters. Books not as described will lose at least 1 or 2 stars. ..."

1. Usually it is the publisher who writes the blurb, and often the author doesn't like it.

2. If the blurb is misleading, please post a better one in the librarian's group, or PM me, so we can fix it. We can't abide hype, and I, personally, avoid meme words.

Oh, Holly, I'm so happy that you found a way to benefit from goodreads. I've found myself reading fewer group books myself, though I do want to participate in good discussions. It is a bit of a dilemma.

Cheryl wrote: "L J wrote: "I also consider what the author says about the book, including genre and characters. Books not as described will lose at least 1 or 2 stars. ..."

1. Usually it is the publisher who writes the blurb..."

I'm talking about what the author says rather than what the blurb says. When considering a new author I often look at author website, interviews, etc. to see what the author has to say.

I realize in traditional publishing the author has little control of the blurb or how the publisher chooses to promote the book when it comes to genre. Independent authors usually have more control of how their book is promoted.

Edited for clarification and to add question: When you say "meme words" are you talking about frequently used superlatives or something else?

Oh, I'm sorry, it never occurs to me to visit the author's website.

I mean words like 'thrilling'... esp. when the book is a family saga or something, not a thriller. Or 'dark secret'... when the book is also supposed to be 'heartwarming,' If I think of or find more examples I'll try to remember to come back to post.

Cheryl wrote: "...I mean words like 'thrilling'... esp. when the book is a family saga or something, not a thriller. Or 'dark secret'... when the book is also supposed to be 'heartwarming,' ..."

Think I get it.
So, "tension filled" when the book is a cozy mystery or romantic comedy?
If so, I've seen it. It usually causes me to avoid the book.

Yes, like that. I'm usually fooled enough to start reading, but I dnf a lot. Thank goodness for libraries.

I think that I am fair with my reviews (though others may disagree) but do tend to review lower than the average star ratings. This is not me being mean but rather that I view the five star rating as the "ultimate" book. Good writing, well written, enjoyable, full of interesting (to me) content and an absorbing story. Few books will fit that five star rating. I think I have given three or four five star ratings in all the time I have used good reads and shelfari before that.
So If I wish to classify (for example) a detective tale, it is compared to "Miss Smilla's feeling for Snow" as that is possibly the best of its type I have read. Therefore unless truly impressive (such as Erik Axl Sund's "The Crow Girl") it must be marked down.
But then I think a three star rating for a novel is pretty good.

That seems fair. And now I have to take a look at Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow and The Crow Girl even though I don't normally read in those genres. ;)

Ah, do remember. There are many good examples in that genre, and each reader has their own taste. To me, these books were exceptional, Mr Hoek's Tale of Smilla for the beauty of the writing and the wonderful tale he told. Mr Sund's for the complexity of the tale and each time he made you gasp.
I am not a huge fan of the "detective novel" though many love them and have only read a few hundred of them and so am not an expert but for me these two, along with a variety of others, were top of the tree.

Thank you.

Raymond wrote: "I think that I am fair with my reviews (though others may disagree) but do tend to review lower than the average star ratings. This is not me being mean but rather that I view the five star rating as the "ultimate" book."

Someday I'll catch up on my digests, but today is not that day. Necropost time!

Raymond's comment here is the way I've been doing things since I signed up for Goodreads. Five stars are (1) personal classics (2) books that are new to me, that affected me on a deep level ("book hangover,").

I more-or-less follow the descriptions GR themselves gives for the stars. "I liked it," et al. Despite those descriptions, various forces push at us to give more five-star ratings than not, largely because of the portion of the user base that looks at the blurb and the star rating at the top of the page and doesn't bother to read the rest. Low ratings don't sell books!

My reading has been so volatile in the last year that I'm reluctant to put it in the same basket with the rest of the time I've been using GR. Lots more DNFs and fewer completions. Maybe life in pandemic times has made me less guilt-laden about the DNFs, and I no longer consider reading the first page of a book as an obligation to get to the last page of it at some point in my life, 'cause life's too short for that. I've actually gotten more generous with books that are "simple fun" and am less inclined to pry them apart with a crowbar in order to write a review. A short paragraph and three stars, and it's on to the next thing! :)

You are right Beth, I suspect that I am slightly more generous with my reviews recently as to me (at least) books have become ever more important during this sad/dodgy/sere time. I appreciate books more than I ever did before and I always appreciated those that I enjoyed.
This certain loneliness, this absence of contact with others would not normally be a thing that bothered me too much yet it does now that we are mired in it. I read now more than ever and I have always been a reader. Perhaps I am grateful to authors that may, under normal circumstances, not have gained my time, for all the efforts they make. Now they let me while away the lonely hours.

When our books are our closest friends, it's easy to be generous with them, as we would tolerate imperfections in human or animal companions.

Cheryl wrote: "When our books are our closest friends, it's easy to be generous with them, as we would tolerate imperfections in human or animal companions."

Good way of putting it. My reaction to books is more about how they make me feel than their literary merit, though poorly written books tend to annoy me. Come to think of it I get annoyed with friends, both human and furry, as well.

I explain to people who don't re-read that I re-read for the same reason people repeatedly visit friends and favorite places. I was taken aback when one non re-reader stated she never vacationed the same place twice no matter how much she liked it.

Raymond wrote: "I think that I am fair with my reviews (though others may disagree) but do tend to review lower than the average star ratings. This is not me being mean but rather that I view the five star rating ..."
You have hit the exact reason for my ratings. I tried to explain a little about how I give star ratings in my profile - and 5 stars are reserved for books that have changed my life in some way. And I hate "grade inflation" as found all over the internet rating systems That hasn't changed much over the course of my Goodreads reviews.

It's difficult to fight grade inflation, at least it is for me, but I agree that it's worth the attempt.

In my reviews I explain the flaws of a book, and explain why I gave it an extra star or rounded up.... At least that way ppl won't see that, for example, a four-star book is necessarily 'nearly perfect' and worth 5, but may be actually just a 3.6 star book.

Another reason to write careful reviews! :)

"grade Inflation", I never thought of it that way but I suppose that you are spot on. People feel the need to give ever more grandiose reviews when a book is just (a recommendation in itself) good.
How many times have I read a review stating "the best book ever written", "a classic", "a work of genius"?
There can be only one book that is the best and I suspect that were you to gather together a thousand people to vote on this question you would find nine hundred and seventy different books in the answer. A classic. does not that simply mean it is old?
"A work of genius" well Voltaire, Glieck, Heisenberg, Einstein, etc may be able to argue that but ( I made up the name so I do not embarrass anyone) Billy Mitchell cannot claim such a lofty promontory. Billy writes good books, enjoyable, easily read and people enjoy reading his/her output but will never produce a work of genius.
Maybe this is just me being pedantic.

Sorry I never saw the notification for this!

I don't think you're being pedantic, just correct. Which is the reason I started this group.

Let's write reviews that talk at least a little bit about what we mean by 'good' or 'best.' As you did by describing Billy's works with some specific words including 'easily read.' Whereas a lot of 'classic' and 'genius' are not easily read, like Joyce's Ulysses.

Thank goodness for the friends and following features here on Goodreads!

Cheryl wrote: "Sorry I never saw the notification for this!

I don't think you're being pedantic, just correct. Which is the reason I started this group.

Let's write reviews that talk at least a little bit abou..."

We need classifications (lol- that is me just being the librarian that I have always wished to be but never have been). A great detective novel will be a great detective novel but will never match a work on theoretical physics nor should they be compared. A fantasy compared to a deep psychological thriller. A children's novel compared to Historical fact. To give a true reflection on the work of the author we must compare like with (similar) like.
Lol- a "Mills and Boon" type romance (which I am sure was excellent if that is your fare" was just voted the best book (going by ratings) ever written. I mean no disrespect to the author and have not read the book, but I suspect that It is not the "Best book ever written"
Lol- though not having read it I may be wrong.

Yeah, it's funny that way, that so many people don't realize what they're comparing, that apples can't really be compared to oranges.

I seldom list the non-fiction I read on Goodreads and then the standards I use for rating are different.
non-fiction ratings based on
Research (accuracy + thoroughness)
Presentation (writing + organization)

ETA I look for different things in reviews of non-fiction than I look for in reviews of fiction. Even when it comes to fiction in different genres I look for different things.

Oh, yes, non-fiction is rated on rather different criteria, indeed. Thinking about it a bit, I suppose I want my science books to be lucid, and to have a point (maybe a theory), and to have evidence/ research to convince me that what they are presenting does make sense (the theory fits the data).

Cheryl wrote: "Yeah, it's funny that way, that so many people don't realize what they're comparing, that apples can't really be compared to oranges."

A better system is required where we can compare apples with apples.

L J wrote: "I seldom list the non-fiction I read on Goodreads and then the standards I use for rating are different.
non-fiction ratings based on
Research (accuracy + thoroughness)
Presentation (writing + orga..."

Good. Sensible.