For a while now, I've been thinking, how reliable are the ratings we see on books, especially as our measuring sticks are different? When it comes down to it, they're probably not reliable at all. Before I go too much into it, I might add that I do rate the books I've read on Goodreads, but I post my reviews on my blogs (without the ratings).
Just why do I feel ratings can be a bit useless? It's in part due to the mentioned measuring stick and how different it is for different readers. For instance, a newish reader, their measuring stick for a five-star read is quite different from mine, as I majored in English at university. You've also got subjective taste (some enjoy books with a fast pace, while others prefer a slow pace), some books have high ratings due to popularity, and so on.
Another thing that bothers me a bit, is the inflation of five-star reads, at least with some BookTokers, and book reviewers in general, as I sometimes wonder just how good those 5-star books actually are. It might be the bias in me speaking, as I rarely think a book is a masterpiece when looking at elements such as character development, language, prose, and so on. A lot of books might qualify as a solid four or three stars when rating it on Goodreads, but five? Not so much.
Just for reference, for me, what would be the equivalent of a three star rating is a book that has more or less everything covered, but with some minor flaws and such. Not a book I believe would be a classic in the future, but not a poorly written one either. More of an it's an average book, but has nothing to "wow" me. What could be a four-star rating is just above that, but lacks just a tiny bit for that extra to blow me away, but good enough I can easily recommend said book. So for me, those that would be three stars, are still decent books.
By the way, what is it with some book content creators who yap about the rating they gave the book and how it made them feel, without going in depth on why they gave the book that rating, other than how it made them feel? While it might be helpful for some readers, a lot of us wants to know more (yes, I know I do that mistake on Goodreads with only posting the ratings, I know, but as said, I post my actual reviews on this book blog).
Perhaps it's better to just ditch the ratings altogether, and rather talk about the good and the bad elements of a book when reviewing it? I can't deny I've basically split things - ratings only on Goodreads and reviews only on the book blogs (meaning - I don't add any ratings on the book reviews on the blog, but rather if I'd recommend the book or not).
It's just a thought though, as we all have different measuring sticks when it comes to ratings, and for that matter, what we enjoy in a book, so perhaps more lengthy reviews to cover everything would give a better picture of the book, rather than the rating system.
What's your thoughts on this? Feel free to comment below.
Comments
Post a Comment