SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
An analysis: my ratings vs. Goodreads ratings
The problem is that Goodreads wants you to rate books based on how well you liked them rather than how well done they are.5 = it was amazing
4 = I really liked it
3 = I liked it
2 = it was ok
1 = I didn't like it
I think this is skewed towards 4 star ratings. Also it was ok should be 3 stars since its neutral in the range of 1-5. I tend to save 1 stars for things I absolutely hate but I would give many more ones based on this scale. This has been a huge source of frustration for me and my ratings are way too high. I'm trying to be more conservative now but I tend to "really like" books quite frequently.
I can't speak for others, but for a lot of books I read they are chosen by recommendation or by looking at ratings from several locations. I can't remember a book in recent memory I really disliked.
Tom wrote: "I can't speak for others, but for a lot of books I read they are chosen by recommendation"That's sort of the problem, or it can be. If almost every book on GR has a 4 star rating, it's hard to tell if a book is worth reading even if it is recommended. It's an utter crap shoot.
This is why I almost never use the recommendations feature here. The ratings are just so artificial IMO.
Recommendations from actual humans who can tell me why I might like a book? Sure.
I would agree with that if you try to go solely by the stars ratings. I generally end up reading the detailed reviews by readers often to make a decision for a new book.I listen to a lot of books while traveling for work from Audible these days and generally I find the same thing that reading the detailed reviews are far more helpful than the star ratings.
Some books are more reliable than others. I never use the ratings on teen books. Literature is usually better. But Goodreads has still been much more reliable for me than Amazon.
Honestly, I don't go by average ratings at all. I'll read the blurb and, if it interests me enough to be curious but on the fence, then I'll read a smattering of reviews (generally 2 & 3 stars) to try and get a feel as to whether or not it'll be something I might like.This is how I use the recs, too. I've actually found a good number of books through the homepage rec feature but, again, I don't even look at the average rating.
***
That said, one problem with the analysis - or at least, to me, an open question - is to whether people actually rate using the goodreads recommending star meanings.
I know that I do, but from what I've seen people say in both the Feedback group and other book groups, it seems to me that most people do not. Most people seem to still use 3-stars for "ok/average" books.
For myself, I have noticed that, since I do try to use goodreads' system, I've found that since the system skews positive it sort of forces me to skew negative.
What I mean is that I am not an easy critic, and I do find that most books are ok or enjoyable, but not great. I don't often "really like" books, let alone find them "amazing". (I didn't have a single 5-star book last year.)
I find most books fall within the 2 - 3 star range, noting that books I give a 2-star on goodreads would be a 3-star based on other systems.
***
I do agree that there seems to be a "lacking" of 1 & 2 star ratings.
I think part of this is because, as has been said, goodreads seems to offer many ways of weeding out books, so many people - or so I've heard it said - have an easier time only reading books they like. (I am suspicious of said claims, but, mostly, I'm just envious.)
But there are also those people who don't rate books if they fall under a 3. I've seen this said by some SPAs who don't want to "discourage" other authors.
Conversely, some people don't rate books they don't finish, so any book which would garner a 1 or 2 star from them is automatically dismissed from rating potential, so they would only rate those books they liked well enough to read all the way through.
So it does seem there are people who will always only have higher ratings on their shelves.
I am not one of these people, and am generally considered a hard rater (by my friends) - but I still average 3.00.
Neal wrote: "This is why I almost never use the recommendations feature here. The ratings are just so artificial IMO."I don't think this problem is unique to GR. With any website that rates books or whatever, I find the numerical ratings not terribly helpful. There are too many folks who will rate as high as they can or conversely, have some issue and feel compelled to rate something as low as possible.
Yes, I think the ratings here are inflated, party for the reasons that Sarah outlined. Having said this, I do think that the ratings carry information about how well liked a book is. But because of this "inflation" the differences are more subtle.
Speaking for myself, I first look to see that a book has an adequate number of ratings. Then, as a general rule, I am wary of anything rated in the mid 3's or lower and more confident of anything rated 4 or higher. But, as with most of the rest of us I'm sure, ratings are only a small part of my decision making in choosing a book.
colleen the contrarian ± (... never stop fighting) ± wrote: "I do agree that there seems to be a "lacking" of 1 & 2 star ratings."For me, I try not to choose books that would earn a 1-2 rating. Or maybe I'm just too easy to please.
There are many reasons for this gap. I think the most likely are as follows.I'd first like to preface this by saying you're likely the exception and not the rule.
1. Goodreads is about books you've read. You're self reporting. Often times, if you read a bad book, you don't remember it, or finish it. If you don't remember it or finish it, then you're likely not going to put a rating in Goodreads. After all, why waste your time with something you don't care about?
2. People have a lot of books to read. Most of the time they just leave a star rating, and not a review. This is where the majority of your 1's will come from, but that's still going to be quite a bit less than other ratings. Your most avid readers, on average, will have about 300-500 books read. These individuals are rating heavy, and most likely to leave 1 star reviews.
Your most common reader/reviewer on Goodreads are those in the 30-50 range of books read. These tend to be more heavy on the reviews aspect, but they also are more likely to leave a favorable review. This is because, unless they really felt compelled to finish a book they hated, they're not wasting their time with things they don't like, or outside their genre preference. Note that I said these guys are the most common, which means they can skew the numbers towards the favorable.
3. Most Goodreads members fall into 4 categories. 2 I have already mentioned: avid readers, and review heavy.
The third, and most populous group, are authors. Yes, Goodreads is now just an author platform, and not for readers. Authors like to look good. If they're overly critical, they might come off as an ass, and people won't want to read their stuff. Authors typically do review swaps. Bad reviews aren't left for fear of getting one in return. A 4 star rating won't dip a book below an average of 4, but it keeps you from flat our lying that a book is 5 star worthy. It's the only safe option for a shitty indie book.
The last, and least populous, are author friends. This is where an author gets a bunch of people they know to come and leave a fluff review to help boost the average. When these users come to review a book for their friend, they typically rate a few other books that might be popular, or they actually read, in order to not seem fake. This results in about 15 book ratings in the 4 or 5 range, and one 5 star indie book with a glowing 3 line review. Funny how that works.
I'm on my phone, and a bit scatterbrained, but all this is to say that Goodreads users aren't inflating their values for books (unless they're author swaps). I just think the bad books are going under reported when it comes to ratings.
I won't usually leave bad reviews on Goodreads for fear of retaliation, not because I trade reviews (I don't). However, I will leave a bad review in the market place where I bought it and can remain anonymous, so that readers will see what they're getting, and so the authors can get busy and fix it or withdraw it. This is usually Amazon, and I've left quite a few there. My reviews all run from one to five stars, and I've seen very few five-star books. I have also left reviews in which I suggest that the book be withdrawn.
I think the high range is a plight of books in general. Books, full novel length writing, is a rather time consuming endeavor for the average reader. It's not like movies where you can spend a couple hours watching some drivel, hop on IMDB and give it a bad rating and you don't feel too bad about it. Books, on the other hand, can take some people weeks to get through and that's a huge time constraint, so when people looks for books they're not looking for just anything, they're looking for something they love. So, they probably turn to friends with similar reading tastes and probably wind up with a solid 3 to 4 star book every time.I think this is where a lot of the inflation could come from, in addition to what has been mentioned already.
Nathan wrote: "Often times, if you read a bad book, you don't remember it, or finish it. If you don't remember it or finish it, then you're likely not going to put a rating in Goodreads. "Hmm, I am not sure I agree with this. I would contend that bad books are often MORE memorable, and a 1-star book is more likely to get rated than something "average". Especially if it is really disliked. People love to rant.
Edwin, I would think so too. However, I suspect we are the exception and not the rule.Most people don't finish bad books, and therefore don't waste their time.
Also, a vast majority of the books that have been marked as "read" on Goodreads were actually read before people joined the site.
For instance, I have read the Joy Luck Club. I hated that book. It was boring. But I haven't rated it, nor have I added to my Goodreads library.
That's what I am referring to.
I agree with Nathan and colleen, msgs 10 and 7.I am one of the ppl she talks about, in some regards, because I a) don't rate books I don't finish and b) read detailed reviews to attempt to choose books I will like.
I wonder if the OP reads more works supported by fellow authors and by the teens who squee?
I have over 5K reviews, 3.46 average rating. That stat says I don't always choose carefully enough. ;)
I rate everything, whether I finish it or not. If I don't finish it then it's most likely getting a one.
Sarah, you've rated over 500 books and have 400 more on your to - read shelf. You confirm my theory.
Cheryl wrote: "I wonder if the OP reads more works supported by fellow authors and by the teens who squee?"I'm not even sure what this means, but I know the answer is No. =)
I don't really understand the argument that people who DNF books don't rate them because they don't "waste their time". I guess if you don't track books as you're reading - but if I'm reading a book it's on my currently_reading shelf, so if I drop it I move it to by abandoned shelf and it's not like it takes a whole lot of time to click on a 1 or 2 star while I'm there.The argument I usually hear is more an "ethical" kind of argument that if they didn't finish the book they're not in a position to rate it fairly.
Which I personally think is b.s. 'cause if a book sucks so bad I can't even finish it, that sucker's getting a 1. (Ok, I will admit there was one book that I gave up, like, 15 pages into it and I did leave that one unrated.)
Edwin wrote: "Hmm, I am not sure I agree with this. I would contend that bad books are often MORE memorable, and a 1-star book is more likely to get rated than something "average". Especially if it is really disliked. People love to rant. "I do enjoy a good rant review - both reading and writing. The reading is often amusing, and the writing can be rather cathartic.
colleen the contrarian ± (... never stop fighting) ± wrote: "'cause if a book sucks so bad I can't even finish it, that sucker's getting a 1"Amen to that.
colleen the contrarian ± (... never stop fighting) ± wrote: "Edwin wrote: "Hmm, I am not sure I agree with this. I would contend that bad books are often MORE memorable, and a 1-star book is more likely to get rated than something "average". Especially if it..."Again, you're in the minority. You've got over 500 books in your to-read shelf. Which is the argument that I made. YOU ARE the exact demographic that rates books a 1 star.
The majority here on Goodreads aren't avid readers like you.
Neal, I don’t see where you mentioned this, but I’m curious if you use Goodreads’ rating definitions or if you treat it as an even scale from 1 to 5? As a few people have mentioned, it could explain a lot if you use Goodreads’ rating definitions.Since joining, I’ve always thought Goodreads’ rating system was weird and illogical. So I’m one of the rebellious people who throw Goodreads’ definitions out the window. Each of the 5 stars should have equal weight, in my opinion. On a 5-star system, 1 star should be the worst of the worst. 5 stars should be the best of the best. 3 stars should be average. Goodreads apparently doesn’t believe that anybody should hate a book.
I can’t think of any rating system I’ve ever seen, aside from Goodreads, that doesn’t give equal weight to each potential rating. But I suspect that a lot of people haven’t bothered to read Goodreads’ star definitions, and those people probably go with an even scale because they assume that’s what’s expected.
I’ve rated quite a few books 2 stars which, on the even scale I use, is about the equivalent to Goodreads’ definition of 1 star -- “I didn’t like it”. So, if you’re using Goodreads’ ratings, and we both disliked a book equally, you might give it 1 star whereas I would give it 2 stars. A 1 star book for me would be a book that was really irredeemably horrible, and most likely one that I didn’t finish. 2 stars is a book I didn't like, but I most likely made it through the whole thing and I probably found at least some entertainment value in it.
colleen the contrarian ± (... never stop fighting) ± wrote: "Which I personally think is b.s. 'cause if a book sucks so bad I can't even finish it, that sucker's getting a 1. (Ok, I will admit there was one book that I gave up, like, 15 pages into it and I did leave that one unrated.) ..."Good thing you stuck that 'personally' in there.
I give up on books for other reasons than 'it's bad.' And I write reviews for them, explaining what didn't work for me. But I don't rate them, because I didn't read enough of them to judge.
That's *my* ethical choice.
Could it be that Goodreads members are more informed about what they are reading (recommendations, what their friends read etc.) and might tend to read books that they have a pretty good idea that they'll like...hence a higher review.I know that my success rate at finding really good books has gone up a ton since I joined goodreads, joined groups on goodreads and have read a ton of reviews from friends on goodreads. Before goodreads I had the back cover of a book at Barnes and Noble to tell me if something was good.
Scott wrote: "Could it be that Goodreads members are more informed about what they are reading (recommendations, what their friends read etc.) and might tend to read books that they have a pretty good idea that ..."I think this is true. Plus you know if you have common tastes with friends which can improve recommendations. I found Amazon's ratings to be completely useless but these ones work for me in a general way.
Cheryl wrote: "But I don't rate them, because I didn't read enough of them to judge."How much is “enough”? If a person’s goal in reading a book was to be entertained, and the book failed to entertain them, I see no problem with giving the book 1 star as long as they're transparent about how much of it they actually read. The book failed to live up to its purpose for that individual. In my mind, it would be the same scenario if I bought a space heater that failed to heat up. I wouldn’t refrain from giving it 1 stars if I were in a position to rate it. “I’m sure it’s a lovely space heater but, since it doesn’t get hot, it just didn’t work for me. But I didn’t use it enough to be sure. I mean, maybe I would have liked it better if I’d used it during the summer time.”
Seeing how many people are complaining about a malfunctioning product helps a potential buyer decide whether or not to take the risk. Likewise, if a disproportionate number of people are saying they couldn’t finish a book, it helps a potential reader decide whether to take the risk. Since people often intentionally look for the 1 star reviews, the unrated reviews to that effect might not catch their attention. I haven’t given up on any books since joining Goodreads but, if I disliked a book enough to give up on it, I would certainly give it 1 star along with a review explaining how much I had read and why I stopped.
But my debate is mostly academic. If people don’t want to rate books they didn’t finish, I honestly don’t care. When it comes to how people rate books on Goodreads, there seems to be a large variety of different methods and viewpoints. Trying to get everybody on the same page would be a futile task and I’d just as soon live and let live so everybody can enjoy using it the way they want.
Maybe part of the difference in perspective is affected by how often and how quickly a person gives up on a book. I can’t think of any point in my life where I’ve given up on a book less than 50 pages in, and even that is quite rare. But I know other people will give up very quickly if a book doesn’t catch their interest right away because they don't want to waste their time. If I were in the habit of regularly giving up on books that just didn't grab me within a few pages, then I would probably take a different approach with those books.
Oh, I read at least 50 pp. too.The thing is, I *don't* read to be grabbed or entertained.
---
Ok, I was just interrupted by my family, and now I lost my train of thought. No matter, this discussion is beyond the scope of the OP.
And we all have these assumptions going in that would have to be discussed even to get to the point of understanding each other, much less to the point of respecting each others' positions.
Agree to disagree and part civilized?
Cheryl wrote: "Agree to disagree and part civilized? "I haven’t heard enough of your perspective to even know if I disagree with it, so there’s nothing to agree to disagree with on my part.
But if you disagree with my position, then I’m perfectly fine with that. If I needed people to agree with me, I wouldn’t post on the Internet. :)
I think we're missing the fact that any reader's average rating can be used as a benchmark. Newsflash: there isn't. Yeah, Goodreads does define what each star rating mean, but that's more of a suggestion than something set in stone and, oh no, a banhammer on anyone who doesn't follow it. To be fair, I once thought the same as Neal, i.e. Goodreads' rating is inflated, or hyperinflated compared to my average rating of 2.74. (I follow GR's star definitions.) But then I realized who the hell died and made me the arbiter of good taste? Then I laughed at myself because I like cliche gay smut and Mary Sue stories, which surprisingly are not common and written entertainingly as I'd prefer. (Seriously, someone with vapid taste should not have an average rating of 2.74, but here I am.)
So for all we know that 4.00 of GR Neal speak of could be the norm, or even deflated.
YouKneeK wrote: "Neal, I don’t see where you mentioned this, but I’m curious if you use Goodreads’ rating definitions or if you treat it as an even scale from 1 to 5? As a few people have mentioned, it could expla..."I've never really looked at the wordings. For me 1 star is a really bad book (they exist, but are rare). A 5 star is an amazing book, that has mindblowing concepts or touches me in some personal way (also rare). 3 is a decent, average book.
Neal wrote: "I've never really looked at the wordings. For me 1 star is a really bad book (they exist, but are rare). A 5 star is an amazing book, that has mindblowing concepts or touches me in some personal way (also rare). 3 is a decent, average book."Ok, that’s pretty similar to how I rate – on a more even scale than what Goodreads suggests. That theory doesn’t work in this case, then.
YouKneeK wrote: "Since people often intentionally look for the 1 star reviews, the unrated reviews to that effect might not catch their attention. I haven’t given up on any books since joining Goodreads but, if I disliked a book enough to give up on it, I would certainly give it 1 star along with a review explaining how much I had read and why I stopped. "I think I've even given books I'm bailed on a 2-stars. There are some books which seem like they might be ok, but just aren't working for me... and then there are those which are just wretched and I don't know how it garnered so many positive reviews to trick me into reading it. ;)
Experiment BL626 wrote: "Then I laughed at myself because I like cliche gay smut and Mary Sue stories, which surprisingly are not common and written entertainingly as I'd prefer. (Seriously, someone with vapid taste should not have an average rating of 2.74, but here I am.)"
I'm a firm believe that even trashy stories can be done well or done poorly. I think far too many people except low quality just because it's genre or whatever.
I get this a lot with popcorn flicks. I love popcorn flicks, but I'm also critical of them because a lot of them are crap. People are always like, "But it's just a popcorn flick!" and I'm like, "Yeah, and?"
A book doesn't need to be literary and a movie doesn't need to be Oscar bait in order for people to apply standards. ;)
A lot of cheaply made films have delightfully original plots that more than compensate for dodgy camerawork and sets, and even amateurish acting can be overlooked...
Ummm. I may be the oddity here: I usually read books I KNOW I'll like, and my ratings will reflect that with 3 to 5 stars. Because I'm selective I very rarely rate a book 1 or 2 stars. I also don't read certain authors nowadays, mainly b/c I got fed up (Terry Goodkind for example; I got to number 9 in the series and gave up!)I also abandoned Robert Jordan's WoT series when it took ages for Brandon Sanderson to complete it.
Doesn't mean to say that Wizard's First Rule or the first few Wheel of Time books were bad: just that they became so long-winded I couldn't be bothered.
And my reviews/star ratings are not there because it's absolute years since I read them :)
I'll give another example or two: it's 25 years since Tigana and Thomas the Rhymer were published. I read them both; thought both were wonderful; but I can't remember enough to give them a decent review - all I know is that they're both a 5 stars for me.
GoodReads is a relatively new invention in my time-line of reading; I know I've read loads, and if I have the time to 'shelve' them all, the majority will still be 3-5 stars with no review.
I actually like Goodreads base reviewing star system.As mentioned earlier most books you read will be enjoyed otherwise why are you reading them. The series you love you will keep reading the series you hate the first book you might read another but if you don't like that either whelp. So what this means is you need more depth and clarity on ratings on how much you enjoy a book because that is where most of the ratings are going to hang out. Also by limiting the negative reviews to a singluar point it weakens the effect of a book bomb where people are giving a book a low rating that have never read a book but because of something they said on twitter or just from weird hate. e.g.(how many idiots gave Twilight a 1 without ever reading it)
While in many ways I would like a bit more clarity on the upper spectrum, having only 3 real ratings leads to tons of 3s and 4s and tons of instances where 1 book is on in my mind another level from another book in it's same rating tier but it's not quite at the cutoff enjoyment level for the next tier.
As far as ratings go in the general goodreads thread discussing their year in review stats thing. I was making a general point that different genre's actually have different averages. Example here Epic Fantasy is generally rated higher then Sci-fi, a 4.0 in epic fantasy isn't rare at all and many of the better books will be sitting at 4.2-4.5s, meanwhile in Sci-fi that's almost unheard of. Well of course someone gets in an internet argument I go in to check their ratings to see what genre's they read to help prove my point and saw they had over 100 books rated all with 5 stars and I called them out on it and they responded with some dumb response of they only review books they really love otherwise blah blah hurts authors blah blah. So there are people out there like this as well that just debase the system.
Aaron wrote: "While in many ways I would like a bit more clarity on the upper spectrum, having only 3 real ratings leads to tons of 3s and 4s and tons of instances where 1 book is on in my mind another level from another book in it's same rating tier but it's not quite at the cutoff enjoyment level for the next tier."I would like the ability to have half star granularity when voting, but that's an old debate. =)
There are a number of books I found so bad that I did not finish them. In some cases, I didn't need more then a page or two to have enough reason to toss it.I haven't rated any of them, yet. I feel uncomfortable giving a rating to a book that I didn't read. Yes, I know that I would find the entire process a punishment, but it still feels dishonest.
Also, I tend to read the first page and a random page or two, before actually buying/reading a book. As such, the number of books that I've read, but that I thought completely sucked... well... they are few and far between.
I've put up a 2 (or maybe a couple of them). I can't think of a book that I've actually read and thought was a 1. I don't know why I would read such a book.
So it doesn't really surprise me that most ratings are high. I've never read a book or watched a movie because the ratings were high. I've done it because the premise sounded interesting and a sampling (or a trailer) kept me interested.
Ratings be damned.
And whenever anyone asks for 1/2 stars, I comment that I would like only 2 choices. Thumbs up/ thumbs down. Or, possibly 3 choices: really bad (waste of time)/ acceptable/ really good (everyone should consider reading). But see, even then we're getting into 'what the stars mean to me' territory. Two choices are almost unambiguous.
Anyway, key thought for the thread: read and write reviews. Even brief comments are *much* more valuable, to you and to other potential readers, than any star system.
Cheryl wrote: " Two choices are almost unambiguous."Actually, two choices is more ambiguous.
Preference is a subjective scale, not an objective binary choice. The moment you make an objective scale, you invite ambiguity and imprecision. The broader the scale, the better the "accuracy" or value.
Giving two choices implies there are only two, when that's clearly not true. Less ambiguity would be achieved by having a scale of 1-100 or 1-1000. Even less might be achieved by allowing 0.
James wrote: "There are a number of books I found so bad that I did not finish them. In some cases, I didn't need more then a page or two to have enough reason to toss it.I haven't rated any of them, yet. I fe..."
That's normal I feel, most of my 1-2s are because I see great potential in the book and it utterly failed to meet my expecatations but I kept reading hoping beyond hope it would get better, or it's a bad book in an otherwise good series and unless the pattern continues for a few more books I'll keep going...with less enthusiasm.
Yep, two choices is very ambiguous. Subjective opinion can't be nailed down using a digital rating system. The 5 star system is fine, I just think people interpret it differently and only use it as a 2 or 3 star system. It's strange (at least to me) that when people are given a system to subjectively rate something they only use half the system. It's okay to say a book is bad, even if you couldn't officially finish it...that's why you didn't finish it. ;-)
I went and checked and I've rated one book as 1 star. And that was because, as a youth I read all of the original Conan novels and stories (plus the ones written/completed by de Camp and Carter)... Then they wanted to bring Conan back in a new series and, of course, I bought the first one, when it came out.My enthusiasm died, for the series, and I only gave Robert Jordan one more try, when his "Wheel of Time" series began. Didn't get more then a chapter into that one and I never gave it a Goodreads review, because I didn't give it a full read.
I gave a handful of 2 star ratings, but that still means that I wasn't cheated... just not excited.
Aaron wrote: "I actually like Goodreads base reviewing star system."Me too, with the exception that it doesn't really allow for the complete stinkers. I try to be picky about what I choose to read, so sticking to the actual system, most of my ratings are 3 or 4, and not infrequently 5. I do agree with the OP however that this rating system seems to create an inflation, so 3 should not be considered "average".
I can't also help but think that a lot of people just rate the book with their gut, and ignore the criteria altogether.
So instead of:
5 = it was amazing
4 = I really liked it
3 = I liked it
2 = it was ok
1 = I didn't like it
We get something like:
5 = amazing
4 = good
3 = ok
2 = bad
1 = terrible
Cheryl wrote: "Anyway, key thought for the thread: read and write reviews. Even brief comments are *much* more valuable, to you and to other potential readers, than any star system."I couldn't agree more. Having said that, I do think that the ratings can have value. To Kill a Mockingbird has over 2 million votes with an average of 4.23. It is probably a good book.
Edwin wrote: "5 = amazing4 = good
3 = ok
2 = bad
1 = terrible "
This is how I rate books. 1 star means so bad I just couldn't finish it. 2 is really bad but I managed to complete it. I try to be sparing with 5 stars. I worked out my average is around 3.8.
"Cheryl wrote: "Anyway, key thought for the thread: read and write reviews. Even brief comments are *much* more valuable, to you and to other potential readers, than any star system."Yes. I check reviews, when looking for books. I look for why they don't like it.
And, in all honesty, I tend to skip all 5-Star reviews. I'm more interested in why someone gave it a 1 or a 2.
(in my experience, I find many 5-star reviews to be a tad... breathy)
Edwin wrote: "5 = amazing4 = good
3 = ok
2 = bad
1 = terrible "
This is exactly how I rate books. Good list.
Looking over my shelf, I tend to give 3s for books I read a long time ago and don't remember being awful (or amazing). In other words, they might be 2s if they were fresher in my mind. James wrote: "Giving two choices implies there are only two, when that's clearly not true. Less ambiguity would be achieved by having a scale of 1-100 or 1-1000. Even less might be achieved by allowing 0."
I agree about the binary system, but disagree about the larger scales. What's the objective difference between a 5 and a 6, or a 7 and 8? That said, I think a larger scale (or half-stars) would be useful to rate books relative to each other. For example; I don't think all the books in the Game of Thrones series are equally good, but I think they're all better than other fantasy books -- which is not to say that I didn't like those other books.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Runelords (other topics)To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
Tigana (other topics)
Thomas the Rhymer (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Harlan Ellison (other topics)Robert Jordan (other topics)
Robert Jordan (other topics)
Brandon Sanderson (other topics)
Terry Goodkind (other topics)
Below is a chart (clickable) that shows my rating for each book (blue), versus the GR rating for the same book (orange). 257 books are rated, I would say 90% of them are scifi/fantasy. The good news is that there's a definite corellation between my ratings and GRs ratings. =)
Conclusions (based on the 257 books I've rated, and based on GR averge ratings):
-My data is shifted down, with a steeper linear fit vs. GR, especially for lower rated books. This shows I tend to be pretty tough on books I don't like. Interesting to note that I've really not handed out too many 1 star ratings. =)
-GRs ratings are generally inflated compared to mine.
-GRs reades almost never rate a book under 3.0
-Nearly all the GRs average ratings fall between 3.3-4.3.
-My average rating is 3.54, with a standard deviation of 0.89. While the GR average is 3.90 with a standard deviation of 0.31. The statistical average of a 1-5 rating system is 3. So both myself and GRs readers rate above the average, but the variation of the GR data is 1/3rd the varition of my data! Showing that readers rarely vary their rating from a value of 4.
-A GR average rating of 3.90 +/- 0.31 shows that 99.7% of readers rate books 2.97-4.83 assuming a +/- 3 standard deviation distribution. in other words, nearly every GR reader gives 3, 4, or 5 star ratings, exclusively.
-This quick analysis (of averages only) seems to show that readers are fearful of giving a book a 1 or 2 stars (I'm not), like to hand out 5 stars quite often, and give 4 star ratings for almost every book they read.
Not sure if this is insightful for any, but it was for me...so I thought I'd share.