Should ratinsg include whether you would reread the book?

[Killer of Dreams]

So following along the rating system of Goodreads (5. it was amazing 4. really liked it 3. liked it 2. it was ok 1. did not like it), how do you include the rereading value of a book in your ratings?

I've always thought that if I enjoyed a book, I would be willing to reread it many times, soaking it up so much until at some points, I became bored with it. If that were the case, the book, at a minimum, would receive 4 stars. At 3 stars, I enjoyed it but wouldn't necessarily reread it, save for a few parts. If I couldn't force myself to reread it, the book would definitely be awarded at the highest, 2 stars.

How do you all incorporate this factor into your ratings?

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

Rereading a book is a separate decision for me. In the very broad sense, I'd pretty much agree with you.

However, there are books like reference books, craft or cooking books, that are amazing and deserve five stars, but I haven't even read them entirely once, much less reread. For example.

Also there are books that aren't really all that good, that I can't honestly say are worth more than three stars, but just do something special for me when I'm in a certain mood or something like that, and I may reread them several times.

Also, of course, there are lots of fantastic books that I'd love to reread if I had time, but there are new shiny fantastic books coming out all the time and they deserve my reading, too.

I do try to talk about reread potential in my review but I should more often. At least I do have a shelf/ tag that says "to-enjoy-again."

[Killer of Dreams]

Cheryl wrote: "Rereading a book is a separate decision. In the very broad sense, I'd pretty much agree with you.

However, there are books like reference books, craft or cooking books, that are amazing and deser..."

You make a lot of valid points. I've definitely found issues with rating reference books and I've found 3 star books that I would not reread.

I find now that trying to make a rating system that could fit to all books is a bit difficult.

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

It is, isn't it? Hence, this group. :)

I've heard that some ppl don't rate at all, but *just* review.
I couldn't do that. Ratings are flawed and also insufficient, but they do give us a clue to use in some situations.

[Raymond]

I think that this is purely a personal concept. I know many that read a great deal that would never consider re=reading a book, others that finish a book just to start again at the beginning, to better understand both the concept and the writing.
I regularly re-read but I do not think that you can factor it into a review as so few do (re=read). It is a good idea but a review is a very personal thing. You and I could read the same book, in the same mood and each think of it in very different ways.
I remember recieving a review for one of my books which was terrible. The reader thought it awful, I cannot remember the full review but recall the words "dry" and "full of facts".
The sequel (again I cannot recall the exact words) was stunning.

Now if you disliked the first book so much why read the sequel?
Anyway getting back to my point. I do not think that you can truly factor in the thoughts of the public. Lol- or I would be at the top of the bestsellers chart all the time.

[Reforming]

I include the rereading potential in my ratings for myself. I read a lot of books and sometimes need to jog my memory. Ah, well. 5 is a definite reread, this is a treasure. I don' give out many 5s. 4 is a might very well reread. 3 is a probably won't, but enjoyable. 2 is a definite no reread and 1 is a book I abandoned before finishing. Works for me.

[Killer of Dreams]

Raymond wrote: "I think that this is purely a personal concept. I know many that read a great deal that would never consider re=reading a book, others that finish a book just to start again at the beginning, to be..."
I see your point on the re-read factor being a personal concept. My reviews are notes for myself, and not for the public, so the re-read factor benefits me alone.

[Killer of Dreams]

Reforming wrote: "I include the rereading potential in my ratings for myself. I read a lot of books and sometimes need to jog my memory. Ah, well. 5 is a definite reread, this is a treasure. I don' give out many 5s...."

Your style is identical to mine. Thank you for sharing it. It is nice to see that I am not alone in my own style.

[Raymond]

I suspect that, like you, I try to give order to chaos, even if I know that it is silly to do so. As I suggested, a good book to one; may be terrible to another. What may enligten me, will pass others by. Books are a very personal choice and there are few that span many reading choices.

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

Yes, it would be nice to have a system orderly like yours, Reforming. I sincerely admire that you've found a definition for the stars that works for you.

But I have to admit I'm more susceptible to the chaos Raymond mentions. My ratings just aren't consistently applied. Except, I do *try* to use five stars only for books that I think have more universal appeal.

[Raymond]

Perhaps this is simply, me, please ignore me if I am making no sense. I do not think that any book should garner five stars. Rather, I think, one or two, mabe five, in a lifetime should. I hesitate to buy a book laden with five star reviews. Ithink them misplaced or trite. All readers are different. You may well be a more prolific reader than I, have read better books but I have read many and it is difficult to tell whose prose works the best, whose tale hangs together well. The writer that has the edge. The one true genius. Ask Me, I would suggest a few names, ask you? ask others, I suspect we would all be arguing over different answers for weeks on end with no true conclusion.
My favourite writers would not be yours, unlikely that yours would be mine. Yet we cannot all read everything that has ever been written and consider ourselves a true judge, after all we are influenced by our age, time and politics as well as self intreast.
We reiew as best we can based on our own view and judgement.
Sorry wittering on as usual.

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

Not wittering, Raymond, you make excellent points.
Nothing has truly universal appeal.

I just can't help but think of all the books we're supposed to read for school that are called 'classics' and considered so very valuable. So, I guess I'm thinking mostly about the fact that there different metrics, as you suggest.

To get a bit more specific, there's the genius of creativity, of fresh ideas or at least fresh ways of exploring ideas. There's the skill of putting the words down to say what you meant to say in a way that engages the reader and gets them involved in thinking about the ideas. There's the development of the characters that pretty much every reader claims to need to believe in, that should come alive for the reader even if from another time or of another culture. There's the sheer enjoyment a book can provide, either by being a thrilling adventure, a heart-warming love story, an illuminating science primer... Etc. etc.

I, personally, think that if I give a book five stars, you should seriously consider reading it. You might only give it three stars yourself, but I can't imagine that you'd regret reading it, and it might 'broaden your horizons' as they say. And vice versa... I would probably benefit from reading outside my normal interests by looking at others' highest rated books.

Otoh, I *also* totally agree with you that some readers throw out stars like confetti and some books attract exuberant fans... certainly not all five-star ratings mean anything.... *even if* they have reviews attached!

[Raymond]

Sorry for bothering everyone again but something also occurred that made me doubt my system, and perhaps those of so many others.
I just finished reviewing "The Fifth Heart" by "Dan Simmons" an excellent pece of work. I considered what to rate it, four or five stars.
I decided upon four stars but not because the book was not worthy of a five star review, rather because the estimable Mr Simmons has written better books. I could not give it a five star rating simply because I have already rated both "Drood" and "Hyperion" by the same author, five stars and although excellent this was not quite as good.
That raised in my mind a question. If "The fifth Heart" was written by an author that you have not read before would the rating be different?
The answer was decidedly, Yes. I would have rated the book five stars had any other author written it. Mr Simmons was done down by his own ability.
Now I suspect that Mr Simmons will not have been read by all on this forum so to use a more obvious analogy.
Imagine having read "A Tale of two Cities" and rating it five stars (as is only just) and then reading "A Christmas Carol" also an excellent novel but slightly inferior to the first, you would have to give it fewer stars as it was written by the same author but not as good. Yet had I written it rather than Dickens, I would recieve five stars almost every time. One to ponder.

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

That is indeed a tough one. Another reason to write reviews. I've given an author lower stars for their works that aren't their best, even though they are wonderful books and if they'd been written by someone else, they'd get full marks. So I know exactly what you're talking about... and the only solution besides writing a review is to give absolutely almost no five star reviews, as you say above.

Good conversation; I agree we want to do our best and it's definitely interesting to ponder & to discuss. Thank you for a good topic!

[Raymond]

Cheryl wrote: "That is indeed a tough one. Another reason to write reviews. I've given an author lower stars for their works that aren't their best, even though they are wonderful books and if they'd been written..."
Touche, Cheryl, it is indeed the reason to write reviews. A place where you can also explain those little anomalies in your reviews, lol- or I should say, in "my" reviews.

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

:smile:

[L J]

Reforming wrote: "I include the rereading potential in my ratings for myself. I read a lot of books and sometimes need to jog my memory.... 5 is a definite reread, this is a treasure.... 4 is a might very well reread. 3 is a probably won't, but enjoyable. 2 is a definite no reread and 1 is a book I abandoned before finishing...."

Your system is very similar to mine.

My rating system for years was 3 levels: Keeper, Keep For Now, Get Rid of It. I adapted that to Goodreads subjective 5 star system.
Fiction
5* enjoy writing style, cast of characters and plot(s) exceptionally interesting re-read again and again GR = it was amazing
4* enjoy writing style, interesting character(s) and plot(s) re-read possible maybe even probable GR = really liked it
3* writing style various reactions, interesting character(s) or plot(s) unlikely to re-read GR = liked it
2* not my thing but not a total waste GR = it was ok
1* if it were on paper I'd ask "A tree died for this?!?" GR = did not like it
Non-fiction
I seldom shelve non-fiction on Goodreads but my non-fiction ratings are based on
Research (accuracy + thoroughness)
Presentation (writing + organization)
Re-reading or whether I read the whole book is not much of a factor when I rate non-fiction.

edit: added how GR defines each star rating

[Cheryl, first facilitator]

L J wrote: ".My rating system for years was 3 levels: Keeper, Keep For Now, Get Rid of It. "

I love this. I'd prefer a 3 point scale myself, instead of 5.