Your Philosophy for Rating Books

[Ben]

1 star - Did not finish or actively disliked it.
2 star - Disappointing and didn't really like it. A book that wasn't for me.
3 star - Thought it was average or had ambivalent feelings. Maybe I wanted to like it but was a little underwhelmed, or else enjoyed it for what it was.
4 star - Liked most aspects. Would read it again if in the right mood. Generally would recommend to someone without reservations.
5 star - A favourite, loved everything about it.

[Paolo]

5-stars: [2% of all books] The mere fact that these books exist fills me with glee and I feel blessed, honored and privileged to have experienced reading them.

4-stars: [44% of all books] General "loved it" category. Since I'm a person who is easy to please but difficult to really impress, I would guess most books would fall in this category.

3-stars: [37% of all books] It was good. The book has notable faults but I liked it for the most part.

2-stars: [12% of all books] Bad stuff. Books that I struggle through and just force myself to finish, despite having some redeeming factors.

1-star: [5% of all books] Books that don't need to exist. Did not finish reading as it seems totally pointless to do so. Would not recommend to anyone.

tbh though, I wish goodreads followed a 10-step rating system.

[[deleted user]]

0= forgot to rate (Nothing ever deserves an actual 0, no matter what it is)
1= Didn't finish (so far I think this has happened only twice)
2= didn't care much for it; had many internal issues
3= Was consistent enough, achieved its goal, and I liked it, but was still sloppy (trying to think of a time I actually gave this rating, but can't remember)
4= Was really good, I really liked it
5= Was written really well, had an impact on me (my most common rating, easily)

I base EVERYTHING off of two things:
-Did it keep my attention
-did the book achieve it's personal goal

I'm really good at adjusting my expectations when going into something new. I don't expect as much out of certain things that i do other things.

Example: I know that childrens books are often highly symbolic and often lyrical, but don't have much depth to plot. I don't go into a children's fantasy novel expecting the world to have intricate politics.

A lot of people don't like the Broken Empire trilogy because the main character is an awful, terrible human being. However, I can read the first couple chapters, and adjust my expectations about what kind of book this is going to be, and now I will read it, enjoy it and decide whether I thought it was good based solely on its ability to keep me interested, and whether or not the things and the writing in the book make sense for the type of book it is.

I'm very lenient and open-minded about my entertainment since I really only ask for so little. So in the very, very rare instances when I don't like something, it's excruciatingly disappointing, and I'll actually keep coming back to those things and trying them (since they really are a small list) and hopefully, someday I'll like it. Maybe someday, I will like Dragonriders of Pern.

[Daran]

I think it's interesting to see the two different paradigms with which people approach rating books. Some people start at one star and make the book earn more, while some people start out at five stars and deduct as they go along. For me, every book starts out at five stars, and it's the authors game to lose.

[Ben]

Daran wrote: "Some people start at one star and make the book earn more, while some people start out at five stars and deduct as they go along."

I start out at three stars--the average--and adjust up or down based on how I think the book compares to that average.

My scale:

1 - horrible
2 - below average
3 - the average
4 - above average
5 - excellent

This is a bell curve, so most things should be 3s. Also, because of the nature of the publishing industry (this falls apart a bit when taking indie pub into account), I don't think there will be many 1s, if there are even any. I don't think any editor would allow those through.

[[deleted user]]

Daran wrote: "I think it's interesting to see the two different paradigms with which people approach rating books. Some people start at one star and make the book earn more, while some people start out at five ..."

It is interesting, because they're technically the same exact thing. However, it is how the person making the rating that makes the juxtaposition interesting. It's the whole glass half-empty/half-full thing, where depending on how you see it and what your instinctual description of it shows whether you are more pessimistic, or optimistic.

I'm the opportunist: I drink the water, rather than speculating whether it was enough because I can always get more. I don't start out expecting a book to be good or bad; I start out expecting to read a book.

[Daran]

Sebastian wrote: "It is interesting, because they're technically the same exact thing."

I don't think of them as the same thing. One approach will result in more high scores, the other in more medium low scores. I think the choice shifts the bell curve depending on how the reader approaches it.

This debate goes on in education regarding letter grades, which is essentially what we are doing with a five star system.

[Dharmakirti]

For me:

* = this shit sucked
** = didn't completely suck
*** = it was OK
**** = wow, you've got my attention
***** = Ok, this is some seriously good shit, may not be perfect, but people need to read this

[Phil]

***** = I really, really liked it and I'll recommend it to my friends (141 out of 787 books so far)
**** = I thought it was pretty good with maybe some minor flaws
*** = I thought it was ok but not great
** = It wasn't very good but I've read worse
* = It was terrible and I don't understand how anyone could enjoy it. (12 out 787 including Atlas Shrugged, It, Eragon and anything by Dean Koontz)

[Elizabeth]

1 – Absolute trash. Badly written and / massively problematic plotting. Most likely to end up on my abandoned shelf.

2 – Rarely given. Poor writing but story shows slight promise. Author might be good with some practice and a good editor.

3 – Well written, adequate storytelling, but just didn’t grab me. Maybe because it was just like every other book in the genre. Or maybe characters not compelling. In other words, meh.

4 – I really liked it. If a series I will keep reading.

5- Flawless. The book was engaging, well written, and original. Among my favorites.

[Robin]

I don't really care for the 1* didn't like it rating. I think that out of 5 stars, 3* should be 'the average read.' 4* better than average, and 5* means I love it and I'm looking for more by the author.
I know that not all books work for all readers. If a book doesn't work for me, chances are it won't work for the readers who are looking at my reviews, so why bother saying something negative about it? There are many best sellers that I could not finish. Obviously, those books worked for some people (a LOT of some people) and I should just leave those books alone to be discovered by the people they work for. I wish 2* did not mean 'insipid' to a lot of people on goodreads. That's not what I use it for. Frankly, most books I've read are 2* in my own mind, and that's not a bad rating. But because of how the rating is set on Goodreads, I feel like I'm slamming a book if I give it a 2* rating.
So. Long way of saying that the stars are not very useful for me. I like to read what someone says about the book and judge it from there.

[Chris]

1: A book I strongly disliked

2: A book that was just ok, I never really wanted to pick it back up

3: A book that I found enjoyable, but flawed

4. A book that caught my attention, but wasn't perfect

5: Life changing/Inspirational/Could not put it down

[Casey]

My rating system is pretty low-tech.

Discard shelf = couldn't finish it, but reserve the right to try it again.

1-star = It's not good, and I didn't like it.

2-star = It was "okay," but not very good, or just not my thing.

3-star = It was fair-to-midland, but suffers from flawed writing, predictable plot, and/or stagnant characters. I don't regret reading this book, but doubt I'll pick it up again for a reread.

4-star = This shit is good! I have no qualms rereading this at a later time, would recommend to many others if genre were in their scope of literary interest. Generally books in this rating are examples of crisp, clean, and flowing writing. I derive pleasure from author's writerly skill, and the story is also enjoyable.

5-star = Fuck me! Everyone should read this book. I don't care if you don't like the genre, you really should read this book. Your time on this planet is dulled the longer you breathe without reading this book. I don't expect everyone will agree with my 5-star book rating. But once they read it, I do expect them to see the world and the craft of writing differently — And their eyes shall be open.

One caveat:
I have a few 5-star books that earned their rating more out of nostalgia and a desire to read similarly based works than their literary merits may warrant. But these are a fistful few.

[Tommy]

I personally believe it's impossible to objectively define what makes a book, or even an author, good or bad. Therefore, I make it clear that my ratings/reviews are subjective and based strictly on how the book worked for me. Also, I don't start with a low or high rating, I just finish reading and then see where I feel the book landed.

DNF - I won't assign a grade to something I didn't finish, but I may write up a short review to say why not.

1 - Hated it(I rarely, if ever, give this rating because I find it hard to hate works of creativity/art).

2 - Not my cup of tea. I may have enjoyed it here and there but it was ultimately a miss. I may or may not read hypothetical sequels.

3 - I liked it while reading it, but it didn't resonate much with me past that. I doubt I'll reread it, but will likely read any hypothetical sequels.

4 - I really liked it and likely stayed up far later than I should have reading it. I will actively seek out sequels and/or other books by the author.

5 - Loved it. When I wasn't reading it, I was thinking about it. This one is getting recommended to everyone I know.

[Casey]

@Tommy - I just assumed that subjective ratings were a given. No one believes that uniform objectiveness exists within rating a book... right?

[Darren]

5 - Amazing!
4 - Really liked it
3 - Liked it
2 - It was okay
1 - Did not like

Sometimes I won't rate a book.

[Tommy]

Casey wrote: "@Tommy - I just assumed that subjective ratings were a given. No one believes that uniform objectiveness exists within rating a book... right?"

For the most part, yes. But I see enough people treat their opinion as right and others as wrong enough that I felt it was worth mentioning. I meant nothing by it, just really highlighting it as it relates to my views is all.

[Caitlin]

Mine is pretty much the same:
1 - Not only did I hate it, I think others will as well
2 - Disliked strongly, but acknowledge that it may not be a universal feeling
3 - Average
4 - Really enjoyed
5 - Enjoyed so much I'm going to pester others to read it.
Ideally I'd have a bell curve where out of 10 books, one is a 1, one is a 5, two are 2s, two are 4s, and four are 3s, but I allow for the fact that a lot of books I read come from recommendations. I assume that will skew the results as people tend not to recommend books that could be 1s or 2s.

[Wastrel]

I try to review based on the quality of the book, rather than whether I liked it - that is, I try to rate by whether I think others will like it, and how much (although of course it's easier for me to see virtues that appeal to me than those that don't).

I divide my reaction up into different ways that I think a book can be succesful. I've gone with seven categories: how exciting it is; how emotional it makes me; how interesting and thought-provoking it is; how beautiful it is; how admirably well-crafted it is; how much I love it (there are books that I think are good that I don't like, and there are also books that I like that I don't love (eg painful harrowing reads), and some that I love even though I don't really like them (eg shallow pulp) - this is the 'likelihood of wanting to curl up with this book by a fire' score); and lastly how unique and imaginative and different it is.

Each of those I score 1-5. 3 is 'par for the course', 2 and 4 are 'this is a reason to recommend the book', 1 is 'don't read this if this dimension matters to you', and 5 is 'as good as you could possibly expect from a book'.

I then take those seven scores and add them together (turning 5s into 6s to reward excellence), then in a few cases add a few points for more intangible impression, and get a score at the end out of about 46. I then convert this into a score from 1-7 - different ranges in the big score convert to set scores 1-7, but there are also bits between those ranges where I can choose whether to round up or down based on intangibles.

This gives me a range of score from 1-7, which I think of as:
1: painfully utterly absolutely horribly terrible don't read this
2: a bad book with no real redeeming features (but is better than extracting your teeth by hand)
3: it's fundamentally a bad book, but it has redeeming features (i.e. may be worth reading if you particularly like this sort of book)
4: not bad. not going to tell everybody to read it, but it's pretty respectably solid
5: good. worth recommending to people, unless they particularly dislike this type of book
6: very good. a real stand-out book that needs to be recommended to others, even people who might not think they'd be interested
7: brilliant. going to be on the list of best books I've ever read. everyone should read.

Unfortunately, Goodreads only gives marks out of 5. So rather than do maths and then do rounding, I just conflate my 1-3 as 1 on GR, then have my 4 as GR2, my 5 as GR3, my 6 as GR5 and my 7 as GR5.

This means that I look quite cruel to the lower end, compared to some people here, but I'd rather that than go around giving 5s to things that don't merit it. Besides, I don't read many bad books these days.

-----

Why do I do all the above? Well, I'm not that great at just throwing a 1-5 rating at something without basing it on something. It would be too based on my mood at the time, and I'd end up giving too much stuff 3 out of caution. [at school we had to rate the books we read - I rated 95% of everything as either a 7 or a 7.5 out of 10]. And a book is just too much, too complicated, for me to grasp in one go. So I try to make a simple analysis of the different aspects of the book one by one, and base my final view on those.

Also, I find that doing that - working out which aspects of the book worked for me and why - makes me think about books in a more critical and useful way.

[Casey]

Wastrel wrote: "I try to rate by whether I think others will like it, and how much..."

Interesting.
I think it sounds difficult to rate a book based on your perception of someone else's perceived derivation of pleasure. I have a hard enough time trying to determine how the material impacts me, let alone someone else of which I lack intimate knowledge.
But hey, if you can manage, cool.

[Casey]

Tommy wrote: "For the most part, yes. But I see enough people treat their opinion as right and others as wrong enough that I felt it was worth mentioning. I meant nothing by it, just really highlighting it as it relates to my views is all..."

Oh, I see. Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Thanks for clarifying.

[Olivia "So many books--so little time.""]

Daran wrote: "I read years ago that a five star system is just a letter grade system by another name so

1=F
2=D
3=C (passing grade)
4=B
5=A

Of course, that's still very subjective. The quandary I have is, wha..."

I find it makes the most sense for me to compare the numbers to letter grades too. 1/F means so bad I didn't finish it. 2/D is meh to bad. 3/C is good enough, but I wouldn't want to re-read it. 4/B means I really liked it. 5/A means amazing. I would recommend books I gave 4 or 5 stars to.

Since I really enjoy reading it's extremely rare for me to give 1 or 2 stars. Most of the books I read get 4 or 5 stars.

[Brittany]

I will always find giving ratings to be a difficult concept. It is absolutely subjective to my tastes, and feelings. I struggle with the idea of enjoyment and technical writing prowess exhibited within a book.

Example: Shadow and Bone. I consumed the book within 3 hours and some change. I enjoyed it. A lot more than I thought was capable, due to the inherent quality of writing. The plot, character development, and writing was mediocre, however all of those things didn't necessarily bog my strange enjoyment for the book. I sat for an hour thinking how to rate it. I ended up giving it a three star rating. I still feel conflicted about this on various levels.

This idea also applies to five star rated books. It doesn't necessarily need to be born from the hands of litrary gods, but the genuine feeling it evokes I feel is more powerful. So I have come at this stressful stage in rating where I argue over the beauty of a work versus its theoretical book-equivalent of 'quantitative analysis.' It's still subjective. This is why I would fail as an English teacher and I air on the side of science and mathematics. There is no mathematical pertubation to represent my emotions towards a book, even if said book was written to perfection. The elements of a story and the soul of the author laid upon the page- it all makes a messy difference.

So my ratings stand as such currently-

0 star/unrated - Not read/ Did not finish and cannot appropriately assess

1 star - poor quality in terms of technical writing, plot devices, and characters. Left no impact upon me, felt as wasted time and chore-like.

2 stars - had potential to be decent or even great if executed properly. Writing needed reworking, or story/characters/ideas needed more honing. Disappointment, because aspects of the book were promising, but were overshadowed by other glaring problems.

3 stars - enjoyable and generally classed as a 'fun read.' This is where things get messy (as is seen in 4 and 5 star rated books for me). The book at a three star could have done well at either the writing aspects or story aspects, or did okay on both ends. Flaws inherent, but do not mar the experience of the book. Generally what I tell my friends- anything above a 2.5 stars from me should be given a reading chance since stylistic preferences are too common amongst people. If a solid 3 star, I gently urge others to read in order to compare feelings and evaluations. This rating tends to illicit the best book discussions amongst my friends.

4 stars - Very enjoyable. It's a better version of the 3 star obviously. The flaws tend towards one category or dabble in small areas in both writing and story telling. These books tend to have deep meaning to me beyond the words. Books with 4 stars have at some point made me pause in think, or caused me to express extroverted emotion. Or caused me to stay up to read it. I urge friends more eagerly to pick up the book at this point. Discussions can be a little group-think driven if all in agreement, or friction-filled if opinions vary greatly.


5 stars - they exist on their own plane of existance. They don't really have the same fundamental applications as I have held to the other books. These books are important to me whether it be dictated by pure emotion and beauty or due to the awestruck writing and storytelling is shows. Everything about these books transcends the ratings really. Generally these books are well written, beautiful/gritty/or impressionable stories, and have made me set down the book at points and think, feel, be challenged on my ideas multiple times, or feel lost in wunderlust. These stories stick in my head years down the road and I often have reread the books multiple times to extract more depth and meaning from them each time. Discussion is null because I am irrational towards the book in my lusting, but will freely talk about why I enjoyed it. I will listen to alternate point of views, but it won't affect my feelings and admiration to the book. Nostalgia plays a huge role in 5 star ratings for me.


Sorry for the long winded rant. I needed to get it off my chest.