More than Just a Rating discussion
questions and discussions
>
the stars - using GR's rating system
date
newest »


3*s is my neutral ground. I read it, I enjoyed it. There wasn't anything new or overly exciting about it, but I wasn't disappointed by it. I base everything else around that.
1*s and 2*s are books that disappointed me in some way. 4*s and 5*s are books that surprised me in some way.
In a way, I can kind of equate the way I rate books to being graded in a class. If you do the minimum requirements you can slide by with a C and doing more (or less) raises or lowers your grade.



I wouldn't mind places to use the GR rating system in other areas. I read a good tutorial about writing on Ambitious Writers (group) that had everything broken down into nice neat areas of concentration. It wouldn't bother me to be able to rate on a star value for each area and an overall mark. Then free text more about how the book affected me or provoked good/bad feelings and thoughts etc. What I liked is always better to talk about than what I did not like.

4 stars - good book, which I thoroughly enjoyed spending time with
3 stars - Ok, time wasn't wasted, but nothing special
2 stars - flawed, didn't like it much, probably will ignore the author in the future
1 star - hated it, might not even have finished it

4 stars-- I really liked it. Keeper.
3 stars-- I was decent/fairly good
2 stars-- I didn't like it/Very flawed book
1 stars-- I hated it.
My average rating is 4.06 stars. Like Cheryl, I like most of the books I read. I rarely hate/dislike a book. I think this is because I do try to screen what I read, and I am looking to be drawn into a story and don't necessarily expect perfection to enjoy one.

4 stars - really liked it, but didn't have that extra something that made me go "wow" as I read it
3 stars - It had enough going for it that I kept reading, but still left me feeling "meh" in some spots
2 stars - Technically competent, but formulaic and otherwise no great shakes. These are the books that have me thinking my review might end up being, "This is a book and there were words in it."
1 star - Inferior in impossible-to-ignore ways or, the worst sin IMO, out and out BORING.

4 stars - I really enjoyed it. Few minor things here and there, but it's still tons of fun.
3 stars - it was good. I liked it. A few more problems, but it was ok.
2 stars - I didn't like it. too many problems.
1 star - I hated it and would NEVER recommend it to anyone. Ick!

4= great or good read. This is generally what a good book that had me wanting more is going to get. I really enjoyed it. There may be some sentimental value to this book.
3= fair or good read. Fun to read more than having any profound enlightenment from reading it. A 3 may have some flaws but I can over look them. and little or no sentimental value.
2= I read all of it, but I didn't feel like picking up the sequel, or some parts of it affected me negatively (more than just being sad). I could live without having read this book and may not recommend it to anyone. I might give a 2 to a book that I liked, but I thought it fit a niche that "only military guys" get, or only "aging white guys that look like gully dwarves" would enjoy it.
1= either I couldn't finish the book or it has some things in it that mean I shouldn't recommend it to anyone. Probably just plane bad, but I've seen some well written garbage before. I might give a 1 to a book that angered me for some reason(an injusted to a group or person whom I'm sympathetic too.)

1 star-- This book was so bad I couldn't finish it.
2 stars-- I finished the book, but it wasn't worth the read. Don't make the same mistake. Avoid this book.
3 stars-- I liked this book, but it didn't change my life. Read it if it interests you, but don't feel like you missed something if you decide to skip it.
4 stars-- This was a great book and one I highly recommend. (But not a book that I'd own and read over again.)
5 stars-- Buy this book!!! It's a classic worth re-reading.

Oh I'm glad I started this thread. I love *all* of your responses - y'all obviously take care to be thoughtful. Thank you for explaining so well & interestingly!
'made my heart sing' - love it...
'made my heart sing' - love it...

1 star: hated it/didn't finish it, usually accompanied by a ranting review.
2 stars: didn't like it much/big problems with the book. Again, fodder for a snarky review.
3 stars: meh. Usually I struggle with what to say about these ones.
3.5 stars: It was ok, wouldn't re-read it or necessarily recommend it, but it passed the time.
4 stars: Enjoyed it quite a bit, something about it kept me reading. Keeper.
4.5 stars: Loved it, will re-read it, would recommend it, goes on my favourites shelf.
5 stars: Stupendous read, LOVED it, keeper, will re-read it and it goes on my favourites shelf too, something about it is very special. Or like Elizabeth says, "made my heart sing".


Yours is good idea as well - a good way to find a little more room between the 3, 4 or 5 stars.
I need something more exact (for lack of a better word) than what you've done, simply because if I give myself more choices, I'm gonna waffle about my rating. :D
I'm glad we don't have 1/2 stars, even though I often use them in my review. Too much precision would lead me to sit there pondering for too long how to rate the book.


Half stars aren't important enough for me to Lobby for, but I'd use them if they were part of the rating system.

For me, a 2* book can be a 2.1, a 2.5, a 2.75, a 2.999999999, but it still hasn't quite hit the 3* mark yet.

I do love statistics!
Fair enough - we each rate how we feel for ourselves. I'm glad I started this topic so we can get viewpoints like yours.
I do hope you find more treasures though so your average goes up a little! :)
I do hope you find more treasures though so your average goes up a little! :)

Do you enjoy the books you are rating as 2 and 3? Or are you vaguely dissatisfied, feeling "meh"?
If you stick to a couple of genres, maybe trying something completely different might shake up your ratings.
I know if I were to read nothing but science fiction or "literary fiction" my ratings would go down to 2s and 3s as well, simply because I don't really care for them.


I think I would enjoy them much more if I knew why they were so widely regarded before I started. That way I'd know better how to view it. (I suppose that would be one of the benefits of that post-secondary education that I didn't bother with, and now regret.)


But I agree with the sentiments above: read what you like so that you can like what you read.

I inherited a few 'Cliff's Notes' study guides years back, and read them, then tried to read the book they each were annotating. It was helpful. As BunWat says, often context & an understanding of what new ground was broken, etc. is key.
I'd love to participate in a new thread about reading across a variety of genres - we've seen assorted mentions in several existing topics already so I do believe it would be a good one to start. I'll let one of you start it though, so you can choose the title and set the focus. :)

This means I find myself revisiting a lot of my starts saying things like, "2 stars for Beowulf?! Was I high? Four star that fool!"



Yes, I have to go with an 'average.' Sometimes it can be very frustrating, and once actually I did just not assign any stars at all and just explained in the review.

5-Fantastic. Well written. Would read it again. Sets itself at the top of its genre.
4-Very good. Would recommend it to others.
3-Okay. Professionally done. Would recommend it to others.
2-Didn't care for it. Would not recommend it.
1-Just bloody awful. No redeaming value. A first-grader with a crayon and toilet paper could do as well.
Heh - I like the way you said that.
I've been thinking more about that 5 star rating since I last posted. I've seen other folks do as you do, which is to give 5 stars to 'top of its genre.' But I'm not sure I can be convinced that the very best sf I've read, or the very bast romance I've read, or whatever, deserves 5 stars *unless* it would also appeal to folks who don't normally read that genre.
So, maybe I'm not rating some books high enough. I do know I have rated an awful lot of books at 4 stars, and some of them are much better than others. It's a dilemma. Thanks for prompting me to think about it again.
I've been thinking more about that 5 star rating since I last posted. I've seen other folks do as you do, which is to give 5 stars to 'top of its genre.' But I'm not sure I can be convinced that the very best sf I've read, or the very bast romance I've read, or whatever, deserves 5 stars *unless* it would also appeal to folks who don't normally read that genre.
So, maybe I'm not rating some books high enough. I do know I have rated an awful lot of books at 4 stars, and some of them are much better than others. It's a dilemma. Thanks for prompting me to think about it again.
On the third hand, goodreads definitions aren't quite *full* explanations of exactly what I mean. So, here's my version:
1 star. "didn't like it" simple enough, I can live with that
2 stars. "it was ok" for me, this means 'it was just barely ok - really don't have much good to say about it
3 stars "liked it" quite often books I read because others suggest them get this rating - it means 'it really was ok, not v. good, but I don't want to say mostly bad, either'
4 stars "really liked it" most books I choose for myself get this rating - they enriched me, and I have a variety of things that I can praise in a review, and I can find no real fault with them
5 stars "it was amazing" transcends the genre - could be appreciated by people who don't normally read picture books, or science, or poetry, whatever it may be - makes me wish for enough money to buy a copy just to cherish - makes a significant contribution to my thoughts about life & art
So, that's me. How do you actually use the stars?