Ratings
I might be taking a break from writing, but I haven't taken a break from thinking. ;-)
Simply put, I want to see the rating system for books disappear, primarily from Goodreads. I wouldn't mind seeing it disappear from privately-owned review sites, too. Those stupid stars (or marmosets or dandelions or whatever) have caused more grief and contention than anything else in the bookworld -- or at least the corner of the bookworld that I frequent. Over the past decade, I've seen countless writers go temporarily insane over star numbers. I've seen citizen reviewers manipulate those star numbers either to pimp or to punish authors. I've seen author buddies abuse those star numbers to show support for each other. I've seen authors rate their own work. The whole system is hopelessly, absurdly corrupted.
Moreover, books can't be evaluated like cars and appliances. Their worth can't be conveyed on a scale of one to five. Reading, like sex, is a highly subjective experience. The only way to express the nature of that experience on a reader-by-reader basis is through words. WORDS. (Can you imagine people slapping stars on each other's genitals following an intimate encounter? Heh.) At least Amazon requires you to post a review along with your rating. I'm still not sure if the book must be a "verified purchase" or not, but their system is far preferable to the way Goodreads does things.
Serious readers want and need honest reviews, not mere ratings and certainly not juvenile games played with icons. A review can be a few words long or a few paragraphs long. One needn't possess the vocabulary of John Updike to express one's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a book.
Simply put, I want to see the rating system for books disappear, primarily from Goodreads. I wouldn't mind seeing it disappear from privately-owned review sites, too. Those stupid stars (or marmosets or dandelions or whatever) have caused more grief and contention than anything else in the bookworld -- or at least the corner of the bookworld that I frequent. Over the past decade, I've seen countless writers go temporarily insane over star numbers. I've seen citizen reviewers manipulate those star numbers either to pimp or to punish authors. I've seen author buddies abuse those star numbers to show support for each other. I've seen authors rate their own work. The whole system is hopelessly, absurdly corrupted. Moreover, books can't be evaluated like cars and appliances. Their worth can't be conveyed on a scale of one to five. Reading, like sex, is a highly subjective experience. The only way to express the nature of that experience on a reader-by-reader basis is through words. WORDS. (Can you imagine people slapping stars on each other's genitals following an intimate encounter? Heh.) At least Amazon requires you to post a review along with your rating. I'm still not sure if the book must be a "verified purchase" or not, but their system is far preferable to the way Goodreads does things.
Serious readers want and need honest reviews, not mere ratings and certainly not juvenile games played with icons. A review can be a few words long or a few paragraphs long. One needn't possess the vocabulary of John Updike to express one's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a book.
date
newest »
newest »
I'm all for reviews, Tam, just not bare-naked star ratings. Granted, those rows of little icons can be a convenient visual reference on large sites like Amazon and Goodreads, but they're worthless (and often abused) if not accompanied by some kind of explanation. Smaller review venues really don't need them at all.I also find the 1-5 range much too limiting. Whether reviewers round down or up, the final number is misleading. They'd be inclined to be more precise if they could use fractions. Superfans, for example, might be prompted to reconsider if their OMG FAVE authors' books are always, without exception worth a five. 'Cause, come on, no writer consistently produces perfect work.
As long as readers love ratings and authors continue to follow them (something I've never understood, given how neurotic it makes them), there should at least be a better system -- 1-100, maybe, or A-F with allowance for a plus or minus after each letter. And there should be a verbal review following the rating.
Well, I do wish GR had the half star, but on the whole, GR is for my own use, it happens to be public. I don't "owe" strangers a full comprehensive review of every book I put on here. I do try to at least say a few lines, but sometimes, I don't have time, can't be bothered, etc. *shrug* I just don't take the ratings all that seriously, perhaps if my livelihood depended on it, I might feel differently.
If someone just says 2 stars, I disregard that review. (I have been known to do so with no comment, because I have nothing to say and I just want to keep track for my own use - GR is for ME, I don't keep it for the benefit of the general public). As a reader, a star only rating means nothing unless I know the person personally. The overall rating doesn't really mean much to me. I scroll down and I'm more interested in the poor reviews because I want to know what is in there that others disliked to save myself some grief. You don't really have to sell me on why you loved it. If I'm even looking at the GR page that means I'm already poised with my finger over the buy button. I'm already sold on the overall idea, but I want to ensure I'm not wasting my money.
I just read a book that I pre-ordered. I wish I had had reviews in advance, because the reasons I gave it 1* were the same reasons others I trust at GR gave it 1 or 2*s. Could have saved me some $ and time.
So I'm fine with stars, hearts, lizards, etc. I use it when it's convenient and I don't put too much stock in it. If other readers NEVER buy a book that's rated 3 or less or choose to piss around with grades, well, I believe those are pretty rare. Sure we hear about it when it blows up on GR, but seriously, how many millions of review on there are perfectly legit? Most. Let it roll off and authors need to back away slowly and have a drink.