 |
| Photo credit: guzzphoto on Flickr |
When I approach a book rating, I generally think of a book as starting at five stars. If I get through the book and I really loved it and I didn't see any major issues, it gets a five star rating.
If I read and find that I really enjoyed the book, but there was one thing that threw me off, or many several small things that bugged me, then it'll get four stars.
Three stars go to books that I enjoyed, but [something]. Sometimes it's a pacing or voice issue, sometimes it's a bunch of small issues, etc. But I still consider three stars a good rating and I give books that I enjoyed three stars.
Two stars drifts into "this was okay" territory. These books I didn't outright hate, but I wouldn't say I really liked them, either.
One star is...well...I think everyone knows what one star means.
Anything in between those gets a half star, and I round up when rating on Goodreads (but will say at the top of the review if I actually mean four and a half stars instead of five, for example.
So now I'm curious: how do you approach star ratings when reviewing a book?
Twitter-sized bite:
How do you choose star ratings when reviewing a book? Join the discussion on @Ava_Jae's blog. (Click to tweet)
41 comments:
I think I'm a bit harsh :S For me, 5 stars means it was exceptional and a book I will think about for ages, definitely re-read. I think I've given 4-5 books in the past YEAR a 5 star rating. Considering I read 50-70 books a year, that's a tiny percentage.
4 stars for me is great. The book didn't have any issues that I could see, and I loved it, but it wasn't so exceptional that it will stick with me for months.
3 stars is pretty good, but with some issues.
2 stars is a bit ... meh. I might not have finished it.
1 star ... it had nothing redeeming about it whatsoever!
My ratings are similar to Julia E.'s.
5 is amazing.
4 is very good.
3 is good.
Normally, I don't give 1 or 2 star ratings - I wasn't happy with the book, and I don't bother trying to decide the degree of unhappiness. I leave the book unrated in those cases.
What I wonder about more than anything is how much my mood on that day influences a rating, and whether I might have given a higher/lower rating on another day.
Interesting! I know I'm more generous about five star ratings than many, so that's not surprising. Three stars sounds similar to mine and two stars...yeah lol. I'm relatively certain everyone handles one star the same way (probably? I guess we'll see).
Thanks for sharing!
That's interesting about lower-star ratings. I know there are books that I really didn't like that I just...didn't rate. But lately I've been giving them ratings and just saying a sentence or two why and leaving it at that. (Or not, if I feel uncomfortable about explaining.)
I do think mood probably has a lot to do with it. Particularly when you start debating between half star ratings...
That's so interesting! I rarely DNF a book (probably because I usually test them before deciding to read? Though I've been doing less of that lately...). Plus I suppose, a lot of books that I've read lately that I would normally DNF (or not read at all) were required for class. So. Low star ratings, it is.
That's interesting though about the lack of reviews for one and five star ratings. One I definitely get, and five I understand too, though I think it's clear to everyone here that I enjoy gushing about books I love. :)
I do pretty much exactly what you do--I round up. I've always wished sites would give us a 10-star rating system--there are definite differences between some books I really liked that I gave 5 stars to, and my favorite books of all time, but 5 stars just isn't enough variety, especially when it's impossible to give anything 0 stars. Someone redo the system!
Also, while I love gushing about books I love, I usually don't write reviews for books I gave 1 and 2 stars to. I figure the rating speaks for itself and there's enough negativity on the internet as it is, plus it's just more fun to talk about things you love than things you hated. Recently I came across a writer/blogger who went on a rant on people who leave 1 and 2 star reviews with no explanation why--I gave her my reasons and she said I was basically just being really unhelpful, she'd rather know why her book got a low review than just see 1 or 2 stars. What do you think Ava? Negative book reviews or no?
I'm of the opinioin 5's should be reserved for very good books, otherwise a 5 really doesn't mean much,
5 = Excellent (a compelling, flawless or near-perfect read)
4 = Good (had a few issues, but they were minor... maybe a less than brisk pace or a less than inspiring voice, but still a good read)
3 = Okay (Meh... not horrible, but had some obvious issues and didn't do much for picky ol' me)
2 = Not good (had serious issues and / or amateur writing)
1 = Should never have seen the light of its publishing day
Rating books is COMPLICATED. So now, I don't. Strangely enough I blogged about this a couple of days ago--I was struggling with ratings, and how I found in my reviews people often misinterpreted my star ratings. (It also doesn't help I was very harsh with my ratings.) I was terrified I'd put people off. What if they saw my rating and decided to skip over the novel? I don't review to do that; I review to express my thoughts about a book. I asked myself: Are star ratings necessary? Do they really work with me and my blog? Don't get me wrong: star ratings are a wonderful way for a reader to get a quick idea of what I thought of the novel. But it's the words that count to me. And for me, and MY style of blogging I just didn't think they were needed.
Why yes, I think I might have strayed off topic just a touch there. Back to the actual subject at hand, my rating system went a little like this:
5 -- Adored it. Blew. My. Freaking. Mind.
4 -- Really enjoyed this! Can't wait for a sequel. (If applicable, of course.)
3 -- Enjoyed. (I feel like a lot of people misunderstood this one; for me, a three-star rating was good.)
2 -- It was all right. The "meh" sort of novel.
1 -- Didn't like it. Little to no redeemable factors.
But gosh, do I wish that Goodreads had half star ratings!
Anyway, great post! And um, apologies if this was really long. ^_^
I will admit, I am stingy with my five-star ratings. I reserve these solely for books that blew my mind, that continue to haunt me long after I've read them, that I'll rant about to friends and strangers. I don't give out my five-star ratings freely because I want them to indicate when I have found a truly exceptional book. (Sometimes I wish sites like Goodreads has a six-star rating system, so I could give that extra nod of approval or recognition to the exceptional books.)
On the flip side, I almost never give out one-star ratings ... mostly because I don't stick around long enough to finish those, and I refrain from giving a star rating to a book if I haven't read more than a few chapters. Plus, I've picked up very few books that don't have some redeeming quality to them (a unique world, a delightful or intriguing character, a page-turning plotline, etc. Though I have become much more selective of the books I begin reading now).
For myself, I usually only rate my books simply: Do I want to read it again? If yes, then I know that whatever faults exist I thought the book was worth my time and I'd be willing to do it again to further study what I think. If no, then it wasn't worth it and I tend to forget all about it.
I do tend to use a star scale when I review books for other people to see: 1= not worth reading again, I didn't get into it; 2= probably not worth reading again, I'm glad I tried it but never again; 3=okay and rereadable, but I wouldn't be too sad if it fell in the bathtub, 4= good book, rereadable and recommendable, 5= only for my favorite books that I adore and are worthy of blood sacrifice.
But, to be honest, I rarely read 1 and 2 star books because they are almost always DNFs.
Honestly, I wish Goodreads would just let us do half-star ratings. I don't understand why it's not already a thing. *sigh*
The only negative reviews I do are usually a sentence or two (maybe a paragraph tops) just as a quick explanation why I didn't like it. But I don't do it every time. I did see someone on Twitter mention why it's helpful to put something as a review, even if it's short, so I've been trying. But it's not a mandatory thing to me. I do understand the reasons from a writer perspective, though.
I was thinking to blog about this topic, too. :)
Here is how I review my books:
5 = I liked it so much that during the day I was looking forward to the moment I could read it AND I liked the ending;
4 = I liked it, but not to the point that I was looking forward to the moment I could read it, AND I liked the ending;
3 = It was a good book (well written or interesting plot) but I didn't like it for some reason OR I liked it but I didn't like the ending;
2 = I didn't like it and it wasn't a good book, but there still was something to be saved in it;
1 = there's nothing to be saved in this book.
Moreover, I consider 3 star a bad review, because it means I didn't like it or the ending (if the ending doesn't work, the whole book doesn't work).
That's a good idea. I'm sure there's a way to be constructive about bad reviews as well but there are times I just want to write, "Please learn how to write properly" and leave it at that.
Same, Ava! It's crazy how stingy some people are with 5 star ratings. I ❤ GoodReads!
Yeah, those are the cases when no review is probably better. lol
I agree! I just find I tend to think a lot of what I read is very good...maybe I'm really good at picking books. Or maybe I'm just really excited about books. Who knows? lol
That's interesting about the 3 stars. I think that seems to be the one that could be good or bad depending on who rates it. Hmmm...
That's pretty much exactly how I review too. Sometimes if I am going to give a one or a two star review though, I wait until there are a decent number of reviews so as not to skew things too negative, but that's just me.
I'm the same way Heather - I used to NEVER dnf books, but now I realized there are too many good books out there waiting. I just don't have the time to finish things that are looking to be a one or two star in my world.
Good post! My rating system is pretty similar, except that I'm a little stingy with a five star rating. However, maybe it's time for me to rethink that!
That's so interesting! I can understand why you might want to review without the star ratings, particularly if people are frequently misunderstanding your ratings. I actually agree with your three-star rating, and I've found it interesting that some people interpret three stars as not so good.
And yes, Goodreads really needs to get with the program with half star ratings.
P.S.: No need to apologize for a thoughtful response! I never mind. :)
I think that's fair. And I'm also generally selective about what I read, so I totally understand that—I often test-run books before buying, so it's rare that I end up slogging through a book I really dislike...unless it's assigned for class or something. But otherwise, it generally doesn't happen.
I also agree about not rating books i haven't completely read. It feels unfair to me to rate something that I haven't completely finished, but I know some people feel differently.
lol! I like your explanation for your star rating system. I think that's fair about thinking whether or not you'd like to re-read. I don't re-read very often anymore though, if only because I have too many books on my list (that said, the exception lies with books with sequels...because I often re-read the previous book before reading the sequel so I remember what happened).
And I also rarely read 1 and 2 star books (at least, when I'm pleasure reading) if only because I usually test books out before buying by reading a sample, which has been a pretty good indicator of whether or not I was going to really dislike it (or on the flipside, really like it).
That's so true! I try not to start reading those to begin with when pleasure reading. I still haven't DNFed anything I bought if only because I feel like I want to get my money's worth...but usually I'm pretty good about picking books I actually end up enjoying.
Wow! I never thought of considering those kinds of feelings while picking star ratings. Very interesting...
The three-star rating seems to be the most controversial. Some people like myself consider it still a good rating, but many don't! I suppose it makes sense as it falls right in the middle of the spectrum.
I understand why some people are stingy with five stars (and to be fair, I have to love a book to give it five stars)...but I like to think that maybe I'm just really good at picking books I'm going to love. :D
That's a good point. I haven't one or two-starred something (or wanted to one or two star something) that didn't already have a decent number of reviews, but I can definitely see how you might hesitate.
It seems like a lot of people are, which I think is fair! I like to think that I'm just super good at picking books I'm going to totally love. :)
I generally start my scale at 4 stars. 4 stars go to books that are good and that I enjoy. I rate most books 4 stars. I tend to reserve 5 star ratings for books that I love enough to want to re-read many times, are of a really superb quality, or "blew my mind" - even changed my way of thinking - in some way. I used to be pretty free with 5 star ratings, but literature classes in college got me thinking more critically about the quality of even "fun" books that I read purely for entertainment...
It's negative because it isn't positive, i.e. it doesn't increase your average rating. Actually it makes even harder to you to get your rating increased. It's a matter of numbers. :)
Really? Huh. I wouldn't have guessed. I saw it as the opposite—it's positive because it isn't negative. lol!
LOL! Even if you consider it positive, it actually decreases your average rating (unless it is already 3 star or less), so it can't be positive.
You'll understand it very well, once you have your first book published. You'll hate those reviews saying your book is so good but only giving 3 starts. :-/
Maybe, maybe not lol. Three stars, to me, still means it was liked. And I mean, hypothetically, four stars could bring down an average rating if you have anything about 4.0 (and four stars isn't bad!). So...I guess we'll see. :)
Yes, but I'm not talking about your opinion on the rating. I mean it "business-wise".
You are not a potential purchaser/reader of your book. And, besides, you already know how good it is and like it, I suppose. :)
I'm talking about what it means for your potential reader and the chance that someone will buy your book based on your average ratings. Don't forget that ratings are used by potential readers to decide whether they should buy your book. If your average is 4 stars or above, of course everybody would think your book is probably good and maybe would buy it, if they are interested. But if your rating is 3.2 or less (which appears as 3 stars on Amazon, for instance) many readers wouldn't be so sure it can possibly be a good book and will look for something else.
For instance, I'd never buy a book with an average rating under 3.5 (visually) on Amazon, actually I wouldn't even go on reading the blurb, and in most cases I'd rather see 4 stars before clicking on "buy it". I'm a very selective reader, and many readers are like me.
I think that there's nothing worse than wasting your time reading a bad book.
What I mean is that, if someone likes your book and would like that more people read it, they should give at least 4 stars, otherwise they are not really helping you.
Speaking as an author, I don't think people should leave low review without an explanation. Actually, I don't think sites should allow them to do that. Speaking as a reader, I want to know why someone rated a book one or two stars. Just as with 5-star ratings, I'm hesitant to give much weight to a very low rating if the reviewer doesn't give their reasons. And, sometimes the reasons they give actually make me want to buy the book.
I think it's definitely helpful when there's some sort of explanation. But I'm not sure I'd say it needs to be a requirement. Some people just aren't comfortable saying why they rated a book low, which I kind of understand.
The problem with that is that people who didn't read the book can leave what I call 'drive-by 1-stars,' and there's no way to know if they read it because they didn't say anything about the reasons. Some authors whose book ARCs had only gone out to a few people they know have gotten 1-star ratings (no review) from people who couldn't have possibly read the book. Requiring reviews (or requiring it to be a verified purchase) would cut down on those.
I definitely acknowledge that the "drive-by-1-star" thing is an issue and I don't understand why people rate books they haven't read (which is something that's already happened to me—I've received a one-star rating even though my book doesn't have any ARCs...which is weird).
So I suppose in that sense I get it. But I also understand why readers don't want to leave reviews sometimes...so there are two sides to it. Ultimately, reviews aren't for the author though, they're for the reader, which is another thing to remember (though obviously a review with some explanation is helpful to readers too).
I don't know that there's a right/wrong answer to this. It's a lot to think about!
A 3 for me probably equals 'OK' to 'good' book for most others. I'm just picky. ;)
You know, I think I just follow the Goodreads definition: if you hover your mouse over 3 stars it says "I liked it" and that's how I've just interpreted it lol.
Post a Comment