Goodreads, you should join.

[Mack Kilimaro]

Genuinely curious (because I know a lot of people do this, and it always confuses me): why use a scale different than the one Goodreads explicitly assigns? (Which is: 1-didn't like it, 2-it was okay, 3-liked it, 4-really liked it, 5-it was amazing.)

I feel like the Goodreads scale is like if someone asked you to rate something on a scale of 1-10, but they told you that you can't use the numbers 2-4. There is no built-in distinction on their scale between a book that you didn't really like and a book that you viscerally hate. So if one wants to have a level to express this then one has to use his/her own rubric, mouseover text be damned.

Sure, that means my data is on a different grading curve than the aggregate data, but I don't really care. I have a review to go along with all my ratings, so I feel like people can get an idea of what I'm thinking. I have a 3.38 average rating, which sounds about right to me.

It's funny looking at the aggregate ratings for different classics. Animal Farm only has a 3.67 average. The Grapes of Wrath, 3.82. But by golly, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows gets a 4.47. Ratings skew high for later books in series because the people who didn't like it have been weeded out by then, I guess.

Although for what it's worth, the highest average rating on any book I've shelved is Storm of Swords with 4.49.

[Lummel]

You're definitely on something there. Or rather, I would use the same scale no matter what kind of book I was writing, but it's the desire to find ambitious books, books that do something new, books with deep worldbuilding and ideas, that keeps me in SFF rather than, say, romance--and when I read books outside of my comfort area, I tend to rate them lower than people more accustomed to those genres would, because there are things I want that they not only don't have but aren't trying to have. Which is not entirely fair of me.

Funny, because I thought your and Datepalm's scales were fairly universal - speaking as somebody most of whose reading is not sci-fi or fantasy.

But yes I totally agree that we bring our own expectations to a book. If you've read something really good, that raises the bar, or read books that are ambitious then I think other books are going to come off as being flat, even if they are perfectly decent or above average in their own right.

[Datepalm]

Although for what it's worth, the highest average rating on any book I've shelved is Storm of Swords with 4.49.

Bizzarely, devastatingly, obscenely, heralding the death of the genre and possibly of global civilization, of my books, Sandersons Way of Kings is the most highly rated, at 4.59.

So much for ratings.

LIke Mack, I sort of shift my rating upwards because it feels important to distinguish gradations of 'bad', from the 'meh' of 3 to the 'boring' of 2 to the 'WTF EWWW' of 1...but honestly, how useful is that? Outside of like extremely specific and very hedged requests, i'm never recommending 2 star books, no more than i'm recommending 1's. Half stars might solve that.

[ambyr]

LIke Mack, I sort of shift my rating upwards because it feels important to distinguish gradations of 'bad', from the 'meh' of 3 to the 'boring' of 2 to the 'WTF EWWW' of 1...but honestly, how useful is that? Outside of like extremely specific and very hedged requests, i'm never recommending 2 star books, no more than i'm recommending 1's. Half stars might solve that.

Ahahahahah.

Um, if you spend much time on the Feedback forum for Goodreads, you will quickly learn that half-stars is That Argument for the site. You know. The one that comes up again and again like clockwork on every listserv and message board, proposed by some bright-eyed new member innocently asking "hey, has anyone ever thought of this?", and is immediately met by an avalanche of alternating "YES WE HAVE AND WE WANT IT" and "YES WE HAVE AND WE HATE IT" screams that send the new member sheepishly slinking away from the battleground.

I'd advise against proposing it unless you're doing it for the lulz.

[Lummel]

I feel like the Goodreads scale is like if someone asked you to rate something on a scale of 1-10, but they told you that you can't use the numbers 2-4. There is no built-in distinction on their scale between a book that you didn't really like and a book that you viscerally hate. So if one wants to have a level to express this then one has to use his/her own rubric, mouseover text be damned.

Sure, that means my data is on a different grading curve than the aggregate data, but I don't really care. I have a review to go along with all my ratings, so I feel like people can get an idea of what I'm thinking. I have a 3.38 average rating, which sounds about right to me.

It's funny looking at the aggregate ratings for different classics. Animal Farm only has a 3.67 average. The Grapes of Wrath, 3.82. But by golly, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows gets a 4.47. Ratings skew high for later books in series because the people who didn't like it have been weeded out by then, I guess.

Although for what it's worth, the highest average rating on any book I've shelved is Storm of Swords with 4.49.

Yes agreed. And kudos for you for being totally on top of your reviews too!

But the thing is the aggregate data is made of people like us who aren't using the goodreads mouseover system as well as people who are in totally unknown proportions so the data is unreliable. Plus it's subjective anyway. Which is why I prefer reviews and comments.

I wonder if people will be reading Harry Potter in fifty years time? Somehow I think the grapes of wrath and maybe even animal farm will still be doing the rounds, but HP? Don't see it personally.

Half stars might solve that.

Half stars is trying to turn a five point system into a ten point system. Once you done that the natural thing to do is turn a ten point system into a per cent system.

The odd thing that goodreads has done is treat a two as a positive score. On other five point systems I've seen three is the middle point with two bad and one very bad.

[Liadin]

Genuinely curious (because I know a lot of people do this, and it always confuses me): why use a scale different than the one Goodreads explicitly assigns? (Which is: 1-didn't like it, 2-it was okay, 3-liked it, 4-really liked it, 5-it was amazing.)

Well, I reviewed on Amazon for years before getting on Goodreads and it didn't make much sense to change all my ratings, especially since most people on the site don't seem to follow Goodreads guidelines. The average ratings on Goodreads are often very close to the average ratings on Amazon, even though Amazon specifies 3 stars as the midpoint "it was okay" and Goodreads has it at 2 (possibly because the ratings on Amazon are so inflated?). But I think most people have encountered a 5-point scale before getting on Goodreads and a 2 just doesn't feel like "it was average" to most of us. When somebody does give a 2 to something they felt was okay on Goodreads they're likely to get comments asking why such a bad rating when they don't have a whole lot of criticism of the book. Likewise, most people see 1 star as a total slam, a "the world would be better off without this book" rating, so most people don't seem to feel comfortable giving that to anything they didn't care for.

I'll also add--and I recently had a thread on this--that purely emotion-based guidelines don't do much for me. How much I enjoy the reading experience is of course a factor in my rating, but I'm also looking at how good the book is at character development, prose, etc. etc. Sometimes I really enjoy a book, it has a fun plot and keeps me entertained, but that's about all I can say for it. I'm not about to rate a fun beach read 4 stars and a classic that just didn't speak to me 1 star, and wouldn't have much respect for someone who did.

[sologdin]

okay is positive?

[jdiddyesquire]

Well, I reviewed on Amazon for years before getting on Goodreads and it didn't make much sense to change all my ratings, especially since most people on the site don't seem to follow Goodreads guidelines. The average ratings on Goodreads are often very close to the average ratings on Amazon, even though Amazon specifies 3 stars as the midpoint "it was okay" and Goodreads has it at 2 (possibly because the ratings on Amazon are so inflated?). But I think most people have encountered a 5-point scale before getting on Goodreads and a 2 just doesn't feel like "it was average" to most of us. When somebody does give a 2 to something they felt was okay on Goodreads they're likely to get comments asking why such a bad rating when they don't have a whole lot of criticism of the book. Likewise, most people see 1 star as a total slam, a "the world would be better off without this book" rating, so most people don't seem to feel comfortable giving that to anything they didn't care for.

I'll also add--and I recently had a thread on this--that purely emotion-based guidelines don't do much for me. How much I enjoy the reading experience is of course a factor in my rating, but I'm also looking at how good the book is at character development, prose, etc. etc. Sometimes I really enjoy a book, it has a fun plot and keeps me entertained, but that's about all I can say for it. I'm not about to rate a fun beach read 4 stars and a classic that just didn't speak to me 1 star, and wouldn't have much respect for someone who did.

In my head a ONE star is something I couldn't even finish. I mean if I finish it was AT LEAST, ok.

[ambyr]

In my head a ONE star is something I couldn't even finish. I mean if I finish it was AT LEAST, ok.

There are so many reasons to finish one star books, though! Most of them sum up as "I want to be able to rip into it properly without anyone telling me 'you don't understaaaaand' because I didn't make it to the bitter end."

. . .okay, maybe I'm more of a vindictive reader than most. But sometimes the thought of the glorious book club evisceration is the only thing that keeps me going.

That and unintentional humor.

[haLobEnder]

I guess I'm one of the bad Goodreads users who rates everything I read but can't be bothered to leave an actual review. My excuse up until now has been that I'm only on Goodreads for personal record keeping so we'll see if my habits change now that I've actually befriended people.

I always just worry my reviews aren't as insightful or as eloquently put as other peoples.

I really don't like the Goodreads scale. I've always associated one star ratings with people taking an extreme view of things --usually on moral or obscenity grounds-- so even books I dislike tend to get at least a two star rating from me. I don't even know if I have any one star ratings... (OK I checked, I do :P)

[jdiddyesquire]

I guess I'm one of the bad Goodreads users who rates everything I read but can't be bothered to leave an actual review. My excuse up until now has been that I'm only on Goodreads for personal record keeping so we'll see if my habits change now that I've actually befriended people.

I always just worry my reviews aren't as insightful or as eloquently put as other peoples.

I really don't like the Goodreads scale. I've always associated one star ratings with people taking an extreme view of things --usually on moral or obscenity grounds-- so even books I dislike tend to get at least a two star rating from me. I don't even know if I have any one star ratings... (OK I checked, I do :P)

I just write really long winded reviews that I assume no one reads. It really helps me focus when reading though knowing I'm going to try to write something up afterward.

[Contrarius]

IMHO, it would be natural for ratings to skew higher than average.

1. A reader is more likely to list and rate a book that he/she likes than one that made no impression at all.

2. A reader is likely to choose books to be read from recommendations, reviews, etc., therefore increasing the chance of reading books that he/she likes.

I can't see how to look at my average ratings, so y'all will have to tell me how to do that, but I'm quite sure mine are well above 3. I think I've only got two 2 star ratings in my list, and no 1 stars...

[hadaad]

I'm on Goodreads. Just about as active there as I am here. :rolleyes:

Me on Goodreads

[haLobEnder]

Dumb question: Is there a way to edit shelf names or delete shelves?

[Lummel]

I guess I'm one of the bad Goodreads users ...

I always just worry my reviews aren't as insightful or as eloquently put as other peoples.

Bad goodreads user! Bad!

Don't worry about it. With billions of other readers on the planet the chances are that somebody is always going to be more insightful or eloquent than any of us. So what. Do it if you find it useful or meaningful or you want to spread the word about the books you like or don't like. Besides you can always return to your reviews and make them more insightful and eloquent as time goes by if you want.

I just write really long winded reviews that I assume no one reads. It really helps me focus when reading though knowing I'm going to try to write something up afterward.

Yes, pretty much the same, just hopefully not as long winded ;)

I like the idea of putting down what I think about a book. Anything above and beyond that at the moment is a bonus. I've certainly been dipping in to other people's reviews. It's interesting what people pick up on, how they go about writing about it.

I can't see how to look at my average ratings, so y'all will have to tell me how to do that, but I'm quite sure mine are well above 3. I think I've only got two 2 star ratings in my list, and no 1 stars...

Top left on your profile page next to the number of ratings that you've given out underneath your lego-man. If you click on the average ratings figure, yours is currently 4.12 you get a little bar chart showing you how many books you've scored at each star.

[sologdin]

edit shelf names or delete shelves?

yeah, on the profile, it'll have a section entitled [your name]'s bookshelves. that title goes to a separate page, whereupon the left column is "my books," with a smallish "edit" link next to it in parentheses. hit that one, and it goes to yet another page, with all kindsa options for shelves. it's easier to add shelves when you add or review a book, but deletion and other remedies are on this page.

[Lummel]

Dumb question: Is there a way to edit shelf names or delete shelves?

Yes, on the My books page, top left hand side, underneath "my books" in green it says "bookshelves" which is greyed out. To the right of that it says "edit" click on that and you can go in and edit the book shelf names or delete bookshelves.

Watch out, there is a limit on how many characters you can have in your bookshelf name.

[Lummel]

Pardon me, double post.

I blame the SQL repeating on me again.

[haLobEnder]

Thanks. I was on the 'my books' page but for some reason couldn't find the edit link :blushing:

[Liadin]

I really don't like the Goodreads scale. I've always associated one star ratings with people taking an extreme view of things --usually on moral or obscenity grounds-- so even books I dislike tend to get at least a two star rating from me. I don't even know if I have any one star ratings... (OK I checked, I do :P)

At least? How high do they go?

(On occasion I see 4-star reviews that are mostly slamming the book. I mean, yes, sometimes the negatives just take a lot more explaining, but really? Some people just seem really scared of lower star ratings, even when they're actually criticizing a book.)