Petra X > Status Update

Mine is:
5 Stars: Made me cy, made me laugh wholeheartedly, or made me seriously ponder something.
4 Stars: Really enjoyed reading it, but the book had some things I could have done without.
3 Stars: A "good" read. Kind of like Goldilock's just right.
2 stars: Books that I give 2 stars to are seriously flawed. Okay enough that I dragged myself through to finish it, but wouldn't read again or keep for any reason, if its a book I own.
1 star Books that I found to be bad, just bad.
DNF books. I don't rate these. I used to, but I don't anymore. I'm a glutton for punishment, it seems, because I really don't have a lot of DNF books on the shelf that I have set up for myself.

Melissa wrote: "DNF books. I don't rate these. I used to, but I don't anymore. ..."

I didn't used to but my OCD couldn't stand their incompleteness. Now I rate on what I read. I don't stop reading all DNFs because they are terrible, sometimes they don't fit my mood, or I find something I have to read right away, or it's just too long and windy and I put it away until I feel I have the patience.

Mine is much aligned with yours Petra, except 2 stars is poor; 1 star is unreadable, or really poor. I don't venture outside 1-5 stars though.
I do talk in half stars, then make a call on the full stars.

I keep to their system and I round up if it's. 5. 5 stars reserved for the really great, 4 stars I loved it, 3 stars it was good but not great, 2 stars is alright, and 1 star is unreadable or something that should not have been published in my opinion.

Hard to designate a 1 Star, would rather go Zero for loathesome or DNF.
2 at least shows made effort to read (ie. finish) it.

5 - stellar, amazing, aim to read again, learned a lot, recommend to everyone and will probably buy copies for a few people. I don’t give many 5s.
4 - really enjoyed, probably learned something, will keep the book afterwards, recommend to people I think would enjoy it.
3 - entertaining, enjoyed reading it but nothing really new. Might have been really good but with a disappointing end. May keep, may not (probably depends on the cover...).
2 - disliked but has at least one thing going for it. In classics, appreciated but not enjoyed.
1 - I hated it. Either actively unpleasant in intention, or else difficult to read and extremely boring (the biggest sin)

I've never paid any attention to the GR descriptions or the many reviewers who list their own definitions. I just assume 5* is really good, 1* is really bad, and everything else is between, but it's always the review itself, and the reasons for the rating that interest me.

If someone posts a review of a DNF, I think that fact should be stated clearly. Generally, it's better and fairer not to rate, but if so, I think the reviewer should state approx how much of the book they read and why they're giving a rating.

Just want to add: no stars does not mean poor, it means neutral. It does nothing for the books rating, therefore, it is what i would give a book I did not finish and sometimes I have chosen not to give a rating. Loathsome would mean 1 star.

5 - really something, life-changing, or otherwise brilliant
4 - this was a good book (most common rating on my list)
3 - good, but with flaws
2 - flaws, but still worth keeping
(no one-stars)
no stars - I don't remember enough to rate this one, needs a reread

5 - The book is fantastic. It’s not perfect, since no book is, but it’s definitely a favorite of mine.
4 - Really Good
3 - Enjoyable
2 - Just Okay – nothing to write home about
1 - Rubbish – waste of my money and time. Few books make it to this level, since I usually give up on them if they’re that bad.

Karen wrote: "Hard to designate a 1 Star, would rather go Zero for loathesome or DNF."

A zero doesn't affect the overall ratings and gives the book a free pass, so I give loathsome a 1.

Adrian wrote: "2 - disliked but has at least one thing going for it. In classics, appreciated but not enjoyed..."

That's an unusual rating, 'Appreciated but not enjoyed". Why do you reserve it for classics? Why not other literature - say literary fiction rather than thriller?

5 stars - either a completely flawless and flawless book or a book that changed my way of thinking, reading or living.
4 stars - Loved this book all the way through, but not as much as to put it in the 5-star category,
3 stars - A book I liked/enjoy but nothing else, or that I can point massive flaws at
2 stars - Generally BORING is the word that comes to my mind when I think of the 2-star category. Didn't loath or hate, it was meh.
1 star - Books I'd build a pyre to, and burn them till they choke on their ashes

Cecily wrote: "If someone posts a review of a DNF, I think that fact should be stated clearly. Generally, it's better and fairer not to rate,..."

I don't think there are any standards except self-imposed ones and if a book is dnf'd because it's unfinishable, that's even worse than a 1 star finished and I like the overall rating to reflect people's opinion. Not rating it is, again, a free pass.

I rate dnf's (which I clearly mark and are on a dnf shelf) on what I've read since I occasionally give up books that I might well return to. Perhaps not now, perhaps not even in this life.... lol

7jane wrote: "(no one-stars)..."

Interesting you rate oly 2-5, is there a reason you don't use 1 star?

And I only leave books unrated when I have already rated them (novella collections, volumed big books, etc.)

Negin wrote: "1 - Rubbish – waste of my money and time. Few books make it to this level, since I usually give up on them if they’re that bad..."

Do you rate the books you give up on?

bluewizard wrote: "1 star - Books I'd build a pyre to, and burn them till they choke on their ashes..."

These are strong feelings Bluewizard! What about electronic books, would you blur their pixels until they were like fog or what?

Petra X flooded out, tank burst, books destroyed wrote: "bluewizard wrote: "1 star - Books I'd build a pyre to, and burn them till they choke on their ashes..."

These are strong feelings Bluewizard! What about electronic books, would you blur their pixe..."

I don't read all that many electronic books. And when I do so, I generally use the Internet Archive :v. But in those I actually own electronically... I generally delete them, and hope I never come across them in a bookshop ever again!!!!!

Petra X flooded out, tank burst, books destroyed wrote: "7jane wrote: "(no one-stars)..."

Interesting you rate oly 2-5, is there a reason you don't use 1 star?"

1-star books don't stay in my home... I review only those that stay. 8)

I guess that was just an example, and I would use it for other genres too, but I feel like if classics are still being read and talked about today, there’s probably more of interest going on than whether I like them or not. I find Charles Dickens really hard to read and enjoy but figure it’s not his fault he was writing in a 19 century style! Or maybe I feel churlish giving him a one star even if he’s bored me to tears, hmm.

Did you see the recent story about the author criticising Goodreads reviewers who only gave her 4 or 4.5 stars?

7jane wrote: "1-star books don't stay in my home... I review only those that stay. 8)..."

The exit via the window at speed or quite slowly in the garbage?

Adrian wrote: "I find Charles Dickens really hard to read and enjoy ..."

CD is my bete noir. In school we had to read one CD and one Shakespeare play a term for the entire time I was in grammar school. 5 years. I liked the Shakespeare but hated CD with a passion. Boring doesn't come close to what I felt.

Adrian wrote: "Did you see the recent story about the author criticising Goodreads reviewers who only gave her 4 or 4.5 stars?"

No. Do tell. Got a link?

Try this one - https://talesfromabsurdia.com/blog/la...
I saw bits of it live and it was a car crash - her book is now rated 2.0 😬

Adrian wrote: "Try this one - https://talesfromabsurdia.com/blog/la...
I saw bits of it live and it was a car crash - her book is now rated 2.0 😬"

I hate it when people go and rate author's books low just because of the author's behaviour. I understand it, but it really isn't a fair assessment of the book. Irresistible though, sometimes!

"Adrian wrote: "Did you see the recent story about the author criticising Goodreads reviewers who only gave her 4 or 4.5 stars?"
"

Thank you for the link. I'm going to read about Laura Hough, but some notes on the author of that piece. I was astounded at his entitled, superior attitude.

First thing, "In any case, no reviewer with any credibility genuinely enjoys rating a book negatively." I don't think the anonymous John author of the piece gets to decide what criteria for credibility a reviewer has to meet. As in a previous Gen. Update question, a lot of people really enjoy reading 1 star reviews which are obviously written with great glee and sometimes rancour! Why does he think reviewers with credibility would sit there full of angst and worry and hating the job of having to negatively review a book. If we hated it so much we wouldn't do it. But then if we do it, we have no credibility. LOL.

"If you haven’t read the book, don’t rate it. Simple as." This guy really does thnk he is the GR police and thinks he should overrule the ToS. He is disingenous though, what he means is if you haven't read it don't rate it negatively, that's what the paragraph headline, "The Problem with Goodreads" and his words imply. I bet he like every author is fine with all the gushing, fangirl advance 5 star ratings and reviews as soon as a new book title (perhaps not even the publication date) is announced.

"I suspect the majority are Goodreads account holders rather than genuine bloggers" Oh well, we are just nobodies, right? Our reviews are just from 'accounts' not really 'genuine bloggers', Geez. Who is this guy? No wonder he wants to be anonymously 'John'.

A note on 'genuine bloggers'. There are some top/best reviewers that review up to 5 books a week. GR loves, loves, loves them. But they aren't one person, they are 'genuine bloggers' with book blogs with four or five members. I know this because I was asked to join. Some of them offer free reviews for ARCs and self-pub books but it can take up to three months. If however, the author chooses to have the book copy-edited by them (which costs) then they will have their review within a few weeks.

My scale is similar to yours but regret is part of it. If it's 3 stars I don't regret reading it, 2 stars - I regret reading it but there was at least something redeeming, 1 star - I regret reading it, nothing redeeming, was a waste of my time and attention. I usually don't review a book unless I read at least 50% of it. Sometimes books start out badly but get better. I assume if by 50% it's bad, it's not going to get better. If a book is really terrible, like 1 star material, I often don't get past 15% and don't bother reviewing it.

Oh yikes - I only read the first bit, looking for a reasonable summary of the LH stuff. I don't have a problem with leaving a low review - although only about three people will read it, my reviews are mostly so I can remember what I've read and what I thought. And I don't like the way this guy tells others what to do - it makes me want to do the opposite. I'm not sure why he thinks the 'blogging community' is so sacred..

Goodreads ended up removing a lot of LH's spite-driven ratings but left up unrated reviews discussing what they think of her behaviour, which seems fair to me.

Nah... I figure they're more like guidelines, anyway.

My basic ratings are:
5 stars - masterpiece
4 stars - great, but missing something
3 stars - anything from meh to it was fine
2 stars - boooooring / pointless
1 stars - dreadful

That said, I'm a big fan of partial stars.
E.g. my guilty-pleasure books are mostly rated 3.3/5, meaning "I was definitely entertained, but because I'm sort of a snob, I won't be marking it as great."

As a rule, I round up everything with a .5 rating. Buuuut, when I give a book a rating of say 3.5 on the dot, it means that I cannot quite make up my mind between 3 and 4 stars. So I might switch between the two for a while.
If it passes the .5 mark (e.g. 3.51), then it's definitely worthy of "great"-ness, but only just. So it shouldn't get a big head... insofar as books can get any sort of head. :-P

Yea many of the books I read I gave them 3.5 stars because they were interesting but boring. Charlie Bone series overall had strong 3.5 star vibes. Was boring but interesting and had a ton of plot holes.

5 - Made me want to read it again and again.
4 - Very well written and engaging but couldn't re-read it.
3 - It's ok but may not have had good enough structure
2 - Book is just too basic and tired using cliches to make their book.
1 - Very bad I have very few 1 stars mostly 3 star and 4 star reviews.

Alien wrote: "I usually don't review a book unless I read at least 50% of it. Sometimes books start out badly but get better. I assume if by 50% it's bad, it's not going to get better...."

I usually give it 50 pages and might or might not review it. I lik 'regret' being part of your rating scale.

Adrian wrote: "I don't like the way this guy tells others what to do - it makes me want to do the opposite. I'm not sure why he thinks the 'blogging community' is so sacred.. ..."

The blogging community by and large they free books not from publishers but from authors and this is where the authors have a large audience of fans anyway. They are akin to the cosmetics and clothes influences you see on Youtube. Never say a bad word about a free product.

Ms. Smartarse wrote: "That said, I'm a big fan of partial stars.
E.g. my guilty-pleasure books are mostly rated 3.3/5, meaning "I was definitely entertained, but because I'm sort of a snob, I won't be marking it as great.""

That was funny.

So sorry to hear you lost some books.

Dollie wrote: "So sorry to hear you lost some books."

They were old ones and some were eaten out by termites anyway by the look of it. I'm not crying... But the mess, that's nearly reduced me to tears. Water everywhere.

Very much like yours, Petra X.

5 - brilliant
4 - very good
3 - decent
2 - rather bad
1 - truly awful

I try to use the whole scale but most of the time give 2-4 stars. I have to be really passionate about something to want to go to the trouble of giving a 5 star review (which I find hard to write) and as I grow older it’s much rarer to have a magical experience with a book. Meanwhile I vet books enough before reading that I don’t read many 1-starrers - I’d guess half the time when I do give that rating it’s a DNF. But I also try to make use of the 50-page rule (with limited success).

1 - loathe entirely
2 - I finished the book, but I have serious Gripes
3 - a decent experience but nothing to write home about
4 - nice!!!!
5 - fuckin loved every single moment of this reading experience, wish I had amnesia so I could read this again for the first time

Megan wrote: "5 fuckin loved every single moment of this reading experience, wish I had amnesia so I could read this again for the first time..."

Lovely! Just get older and you will forget the books, have no fear. Then you can read it like it was the first time again until you get to about page 50 and then you recall the ending. Shit!

Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship wrote: "Meanwhile I vet books enough before reading that I don’t read many 1-starrers -..."

How do you do that?

P. E. wrote: "In keeping it simple:
One Star—Horrible
Three Star—At least worth my time but never to read again.
Five Stars—Absolutely phenomenal!"

Why no 2 or 4 stars? A little nuance is a good thing!

Petra X flooded out, tank burst, books destroyed wrote: "Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship wrote: "Meanwhile I vet books enough before reading that I don’t read many 1-starrers -..."

How do you do that?"

A combination of reading reviews and previewing the first few pages of books before making a decision about whether to add them to the to-read list. It isn't perfect, I still get some 2-star duds and I often find books getting worse as they go (perhaps because the ones that start out meh and get better I never start reading to begin with). But most of the time it means the author can at least write.

Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship wrote: "A combination of reading reviews and previewing the first few pages of books before making a decision about whether to add them to the to-read list. ..."

So if you add a book to the to-read list, it is with intent to actually gt it and read rather than oooh that looks good?

Petra X flooded out, tank burst, books destroyed wrote: "7jane wrote: "1-star books don't stay in my home... I review only those that stay. 8)..."

The exit via the window at speed or quite slowly in the garbage?"

They'd probably go partly into recycling, but these days I can take them to the library, where there's a 'free books' shelf thing. That's where I took the remaining books of my grandmother after she died, and they took all of them (mostly new age rubbish).
That said, I now have to wait a while because the library is not fully open yet because of this Corona thing (and so my get-rid-of book pile grows a bit haha).

You could get termites to deal with them like me. The books look great sitting on the shelf but the insides have gone to feed my little friends who leave a pile of dust on the floor (amid all the dust, I hardly notice it).

My own rating system goes like this
1 Star: Why did I even bother to pick it up?
2 Stars: A disappointment despite the promise
3 Stars: Not bad but since when was "Not Bad" great?
4 Stars: Nearly a masterpiece. Nearly.
5 Stars: An absolute masterstroke of writing.

There's not much termites here, but perhaps some other bug would like it XD