Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I wanted to get people's thoughts about how you use the GR ratings. I've been taking them at their word, how they're described, which means that 3 stars means "I liked it," 4 stars means "I really liked it," and 5 stars is reserved for truly "amazing" books.

But recently, I was talking with my son-in-law about books he could read/listen to with my grandson, and when I made one suggestion, he said, "But you only gave it 3 stars." I've since asked other friends, and they're used to thinking of 3 stars as a rather "ho-hum" rating.

I like a lot of books, and I give 1 star and 2 stars very infrequently. But since I save 4 stars and 5 stars for things that are special, I end up giving more 3 stars than anything else. I'm wondering whether maybe that gives the wrong impression to people who are looking at my reviews.

If only it were possible to give 3.5 stars ....

But, since it's not, what do the rest of you do? What do you expect from a book when you see a 3 average rating?

I rarely give 5 stars; a 4 for me is great and lots of recommendations; 3 stars more tailored/focus recommendations to certain ppl - my avg in general is a low 3

I save 5* for those books that have a strong impact on me; 4* are books I really enjoy a lot; 3* are good stories but I am not as engaged as with a 4* book. I rarely give 1 or 2 stars. For me, a three star book is still good and, for someone else might be 4 or 5*.

I have it explained on my profile page, just to make things clear to my followers and friends. I rarely give 1 and 5 star ratings. A 1 star is a book that I either could not finish or that I utterly hated (I also have a shelf for incredibly bad books). A 2 star is a book I didn't like, although I wouldn't consider it so bad. A 3 star is either a simply good book or an okay one. A 4 star is a book I really liked, and finally a 5 star is a book I fell in love with.

I give mostly 3 and 4 stars. 5 stars are the type where I want to tell all my friends to read it because I enjoyed it so much (rare). A 4-star is one I really truly liked a lot (but would not be saying "you have to read it"). A 3-star is one I liked, but just average in many ways. A 2-star is just ok, meh, usually not worth mentioning to anyone. A 1-star is one I disliked and/or would never recommend to anyone.

When deciding to read a book, I look at the over-all Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ rating and how many people actually rated the book (few people may mean it's just the author and his/her friends). If the rating is below 3.7, I usually don't read it unless there is some other reasoning behind it, ie. my book club picked it anyway :) or I need it to fulfill a challenge and can't find anything else to fit.

For me 5 stars are reserved for books that made an emotional impact on me or ones that I would read again. 4 stars are for books I enjoyed and would recommend to others. 3 Stars are for books that are alright but nothing special. 2 for books that I regret that I read and 1 are just plain awful. I'm quite harsh with my ratings so most of mine are 3 and 4 stars.

I don't really look at ratings when deciding to read a book. I go more on the basis of friends reviews and recommendations.

Three means I liked it. Usually it means I liked it but not a lot and I found nothing riveting or stellar about it, but it wasn't bad. I'd recommend those to people who like the type of book I'm rating, but no one else. Four stars means it was quite good, five stars are few and far between, and often are rounded up from the 4.5 I'd rather give, but not always. Those were either stellar or had something special about them that moved them up to five stars.

Two means I didn't like it, but either a. I didn't hate it, or b. I hated it overall but it had some quality that redeemed it from being only one star (beautiful writing might be one example). But if I really hate a book I might give it one star even if it's written remarkably well.

Yeah, I wish we could do half stars too. GR says they won't do it because it's difficult from a tech perspective (which might be) but I think they're afraid of bringing ratings down because most people rate up i.e. if they think a book is 3.5 stars, they rate it as 4 stars in the system. I tend to do the opposite.

Anyhow, my rating is very similar to Lauren's and like Marina, I also have an explanation of my ratings on my profile so people know (or a link anyway). Most of the books I rate are 3-stars for a variety of reasons.
--- I found the book entertaining but nothing else
--- Good book but with major pet peeve
--- Inconsistent book - i.e. great characterization with mediocre/bizarre plots

I don't necessarily look at average ratings when picking a book - readers of genres like YA or NA are easy raters and seem to give 4-5 stars to everything - but if a book has been rated less than 3.5 by lots of people, that is a concern. Lately I've read lots of duds on my TBR so I've decided that in addition to mood, I should consider go for the highly rated first.

D.G. wrote: "they're afraid of bringing ratings down because most people rate up i.e. if they think a book is 3.5 stars, they rate it as 4 stars in the system. I tend to do the opposite."

I also tend toward rating a 3.5 as a 3 and not a 4. That extra 0.5 is usually due to something external to the writing like a particularly likable secondary character, a cute pet or good audio narration. Not something that would justify a 4 over a 3 star rating.

D.G. wrote: "Yeah, I wish we could do half stars too. GR says they won't do it because it's difficult from a tech perspective (which might be) but I think they're afraid of bringing ratings down because most pe..."

I go both up and down if I and a half star, depending on the book and why I gave it the half star.

Most often, I go down for halves. It is seldom that I decide the half is good enough to be rounded up to the next number.

Bea wrote: "I save 5* for those books that have a strong impact on me; 4* are books I really enjoy a lot; 3* are good stories but I am not as engaged as with a 4* book. I rarely give 1 or 2 stars. For me, a th..."

I think Bea's rating style most closely matches mine.

I think I do a lot of 3's... for a 5, the book MUST be very very amazing; for a 4, it Must leave a somewhat indelible impressions for me or at least have the "feels"... 2 is usually a boring book that I could actually finish reading... 1 has to be something awful though if I DNF, I don't usually rate it as I don't feel that I should rate something I haven't finish reading though I shelved it as 'lost-interest' which may mean that I may try again in the future (I'm ashamed to say that The Three Musketeers is still there and I'm yet to attempt it again).

★★★★� I got completely caught up in this one and I'm going to be recommending to everyone I know. Exceptional book for its genre - even if that genre isn't my favorite, I can still appreciate it as a great book. Five star reads end up on my personal bookshelf.

★★★★ I enjoyed this book very much. It maybe wasn't my favorite genre, but it was well written and still a really GOOD book, just not quite what I'd call a great book.

★★� I liked it, but I thought it was a pretty average book. I usually give 3 stars to those run of the mill books which are fast, easy, light and enjoyable. The book is predictable and non thought provoking, pretty much what I think of as a vacation or beach read. I read a lot of these when I need to read something fast or for a particular challenge task.

★★ I did not like this book for a variety of reasons. Either components of it irritated me, or I simply didn't find anything about it outstanding. It's possible that I found it below average for its genre, or maybe it was definitely out of sync with my particular tastes. It could also be that it is simply a matter of the writing style or the way that the author handled the topic - either too heavy handed or too flippant for the subject matter.

� I guess everyone has a right to write a book, but as far as I'm concerned, this one could have been left unpublished and the world wouldn't miss it.

I have the same rating as Marina. I rarely give 5 stars.

I generally start with 3 stars and then go up or down depending on the book. If it gets a 2-star review from me, that means I had a few issues with it. If it gets a 1-star, that probably means I wanted to give it 0 stars and absolutely hated it. I reserve 5 stars for those books I think are fantastic, and I know this means my ratings are often lower than other people's, but we've only got five stars to work with, so I need to make them count for something.

5 - loved it, couldn't put it down, would read again
4 - really liked it, but would rather read something new before reading it again
3 - it was good
2 - it was okay
1 - did not finish OR finished and wished I didn't

There seems to be a lot of consensus on ratings and mine are pretty much in line with the majority here. I like Becky's concise scale explanation. I tend to scale down a 3.5 to a 3 b/c if it were a solid 4, I would've rated it so with no waffling.

I think in terms of a 1-10 scale, with the ratings balanced in the middle: a Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ 1 equals a 1 on a 1-10 scale, a GR 2 is 2-3 on the 1-10 scale, a GR3 is 4-7, a GR4 is 8-9, and a GR5 is a 10 out of 10. That way, the extremes on the scale are for extraordinarily good or bad books.

I've had discussions with friends about ratings in general -- like when businesses ask you to give them 5 out of 5 stars, and anything less means the manager calls to berate the employees for a "bad rating." But if we give the highest possible ratings for things that we're perfectly happy with, how do we let people know when something is truly outstanding?

I also take the GR ratings at their word, so if I rate a book with three stars it means that I liked it.

Of course, with such a limited rating system, I feel the options you don't use are just as telling as the one you pick. So, when rating a book with three stars, not only I'm saying I liked it, but I'm also saying it was more than just ok, that I didn't "really liked it" and that it wasn't amazing...

My use of GR ratings:

* hated it
** barely got through it...just OK
*** liked it but there were some drawbacks
**** enjoyed the story and well-written
impacted my own life in some way - truly outstanding

Note: I rarely DNF a book.
Note 2: I give mostly 3 & 4 stars, and I wish there was a system that allowed a 0.5 in many cases.

My ratings mirror those of others here

1 star is reserved for drivel and something I could not get through. I used to attempt to finish every book I started but I have given up on that. There is far too much drivel around

2 star might have some redeeming features but is often something that just adds nothing to the genre it slots into or does not stand out in any way

3 stars is a decent rating for me something that caught my imagination, was stylistically different. I would recommend these to people who I knew enjoyed the genre or narrative style

4 stars stand out from the crowd. Make me think I want to read the author again or carry on with a series. For me a 4 star is an excellent rating.

5 stars I reserve for those books which i think more people should read, or bring a whole new focus to an old storyline. These are books I would pick up and read again and find something different in them. I would recommend these widely and especially to friends who denounce a particular type of book. These books often become comfortable friends