Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Do you just go with your gut and assign stars? Do you have specific guidelines? A number of "points" for each guideline?

I'm always curious about other people's rating methods as well. At first I had a lot of trouble deciding, but I finally laid my criteria out in writing, mostly for myself. Although sometimes it's still really difficult to decide, usually when I respect a book but for some reason didn't enjoy it personally. Here's what I came up with (also in my GR profile)

5 Stars - Fiction so wonderful I want to climb inside the world of the book and live there. Non-fiction that is extremely informative/engaging but still unbiased and well written(in the case of history) or a memoir that had me laughing or crying or both. Whatever genre, I think about the book long after I've put it down. Most of the time 5 stars mean I would recommend it to almost anyone.
4 Stars - Nothing to complain about, a thorough enjoyment to read. It's simply missing that little something extra that's needed to push me into thinking about it obsessively.
3 Stars - Neutral; maybe I'm leaning towards liking it, maybe disliking it. Either way, I can understand why some people love it and some people hate it. It's just that I don't have strong feelings either way.
2 Stars - For books I definitely dislike, but that don't make me physically disgusted.
1 Stars - I'm physically disgusted by this book; I hate that it was ever published. I reserve 1 star ratings for the books that are the equivalent of 5 star books in the way they get inside my head and linger there. Except,instead of thinking about how awesome it would be to live inside the story, I'm constantly thinking about how much I absolutely loath it.

This is what I wrote in my profile:

" I find it hard to rate a book on a scale of five ; I think 10 would be better. Therefore my rating means :
9-10/10 perfect or nearly ; I honestly can't believe you didn't read this ?
**** 7-8/10 very good ; there's no reason you shouldn't read this.
*** 5-6/10 good ; I understand you didn't read this, there are so many good books...
** 3-4/10 not good/bad ; I think you were smart not to read this.
* 1-2/10 really bad ; you are very lucky you didn't read this "

I pretty much go with Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ ratings.
1 star is "Did not like it"
2 stars is "It was ok"
3 stars is "Liked it"
4 stars is "Really liked it"
5 stars is "It was amazing"

I only give 1 star if the book was absolutely horrid, a total waste of time and paper. 2 stars for books that were just ok, enjoyable but nothing special. The majority of my reviews are 3 stars for books I enjoyed reading and would likely read again. Books get 4 stars if they were better than 3 stars, but not quite 5 stars. I rarely give 5 stars unless it is a must read, must own, must read again sort of book. So far, I've only give 1 star for 4 books out of 3422 read so far, and 55 books have gotten 5 star reviews.

1 Star: really badly written (imo), really boring og irritated me to a degree that I didn't finish it.
2 Star: a "Meh" book, not bad, but not particularly good either, forgettable.
3 Star: I like it, a good perfomance - but not WOW
4 Star: Wow a really good book
5 Star: Great book, this really spoke to me/affected me deeply or was unique in some way.

This year out of 194 reads I've given out 3 1-star and 7 5-star ratings. The 3 one stars either bored or irritated me so much, that I abandoned them about half-way through.

from my Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ Profile

My Rating Scheme


Books that I enjoy reading will be 3 or 4 stars. For a book to rate 4 stars, it needs to be unusual, technically excellent, very readable, or just excel in a way that makes it memorable.

Less than 3 stars is reserved for poor stories, simplistic or juvenile writing when not warranted, shock for shock value, bad translations, hagiographies, creative fiction posing as non-fiction or vice versa, badly researched, etc.

Books with 1 star occupy a special place. These are books to not read, waste your time on, or deserve derision if I take the time to write an appropriate and not terribly libelous review.

Non starred books I just haven't decided where to fit them in the pantheon, or more likely it has been a while since I have read them.

5 stars. The mark of something special. All are one that I will read many times. These are books that may be nothing more than a romping good entertaining few hours and ones I just can't put down. They are in some case important reference points in literature either for me or everyone. I will recommend these to anybody.

5 star books are exemplary of their genre ranging from Science Fiction and Fantasy works to photography.

It's interesting to read how everyone rates their books! Personally, I tend to go with my gut feeling.
A five rating means everyone I know wants to strangle me, because I cannot stop raving about it. I plan to re-read, and it goes on a special shelf in my bookcase.
The novel is wicked-awesome if I give it 4 stars. I will probably tell my bookish friends about it over coffee (or wine). But there was something missing for me�
A three rating is equivalent of "Meh". It didn't do anything for me. It had good qualities, but something was irksome about it. If it's the first in a series, I will read a bajillion reviews before deciding to buy the sequel.
Two is� 'Ughhhh'. There are eye-rolls, gagging (this is good with horror- not with romance), and I'm probably skimming over full pages. After, I feel like my IQ has dropped, and I will promptly forget about this book.
One star means that I feel cheated. I have a wicked case of buyers remorse. I will probably donate this book (to a fire) so it doesn't soil my shelves with it's shittiness. Again, family and friends want to strangle me, because I can't stop ranting.

I go with enjoyment of the book. If it's a classic or something, I'll add some star for merit if it gets some things right like social message

I rate childrens books and romance differently - not as much is expected from harlequins versus other fiction

I like half stars but that's only because I sometimes feel stuck between stars

1 - hated it
2 - wasn't my thing
3 - Good book
4 - Really liked it
5 - Loved it

I use the Netflix system.

I do rate books differently depending on genre, author, and my expectations of the book and author. I expect a lot from say Brandon Sanderson, but not as much from someone that I have not heard of. I also look at my feelings at the end of the book and if I was happy with the end or just plan irritated. I also tend to judge a middle book a lot less harshly because I know that it usually has enough stacked against it.

The 1-5 * method

When I finish a book I ask myself what I might say if someone asks me what I thought of the book and then I use the Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ rating system of 1 star is "Did not like it", 2 stars is "It was ok", 3 stars is "Liked it", 4 stars is "Really liked it", 5 stars is "It was amazing".

If I finished a book but didn't really like it a lot or barely completed it then it gets a 1. If it was ok meaning I had no problems reading it but it was just not a very good book then it gets a 2 . I rate a lot of books around a 3 because in my mind I think a 3 is a good rating. The majority of books out there are good books that people enjoy while they are reading them but won't necessarily stick with them for a long time. These books are your staple reads and a nice way to pass your time. You sometimes get some that are elevated a bit more and stand out in your mind as better than others or that you will remember for a longer time and those books get a 4 rating. Rarely, but its great when you do, you find a truly amazing book that just swept you away and really spoke to you and those get the 5.

I really struggle with rating books! I try to step outside of my personal opinion and gauge whether others would enjoy the book. I almost never give a 5 star because to me that would mean that the book was perfect and everyone would love it. Never found such a book. But books that I really enjoy and think a lot of others would enjoy get 4 stars. Books that were ok, and that I thought others would enjoy get 3 stars, books that were not ok 2 stars, books I would find hard to believe anyone would enjoy 3 stars. Because I am also a writer and an editor, storytelling and grammar play a big part in the decision making process for me. I know that there are books out there that are wildly popular, but have horrible grammar issues. But to me, to get a 3 star or higher the basic elements have to be in place. If your story is so compelling that I skim over the grammar/ spelling issues then I will cut some slack. (I am reading one right now that was pre-edit and every once in a while I notice the editing issues, but it is so engrossing a read that I am able to skim over most of them.) Given that I find grammar and spelling errors in professionally published books, I can't hold that too harshly against authors, even when it drives me completely bonkers...

Most of my books are 3 and 4 star ratings, with 4 stars edging out by a nose. I guess I go by a combination of Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ' suggestion and my gut. These are books I liked, I'd probably recommend to someone as a vacation read or if I know they are really into a specific theme/genre/interest. 4 stars is something I'll probably read again, but only when I trip over it on my shelf.

A 5 star book is one which stays with me when I'm not reading it, makes me wish it would never end, and that I can't shake the characters/setting/message of the book even after I've finished it. These are the ones I tend to reach for when I have that "I need to read" feeling. I probably know the story backward and forward, but I just want to crawl into the world again.

I don't have a lot of 1 or 2 star ratings, probably because I try to be choosy up front with what I read. For a 2 star, it isn't a bad book, it just didn't resonate with me, for whatever reason. Sometimes it's simply that I've started something and been in the wrong frame of mind to appreciate it. I've gone back a couple of times and these have upgraded to at least a 3 star. Other times, it just didn't turn out to be the type of story I expected, and I couldn't make a connection. A 1 star rating is for something I just can't finish. I'll also give it if the premise is so unbelievable that I keep yelling at the page or I can't find a single character I wouldn't mind seeing sink into a deep pit of quicksand (or snakes, spikes, scorpions, substitute your own ideas).

I use Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ rating system + something else

0- I don´t rate classics or books writen by people that had been dead for more than 30 years (I´ve made 2 exceptions this year)
1- either didn´t like it at all or I´ve tried to read it and gave up on it because it was too bad
2- it was ok
3- I liked it (most of the books fall into this category)
4- I really liked it
5- it was amazing

Brian wrote: " Two, an author puts a lot of effort into a book and while it may not be my cup of tea, someone else might really enjoy it and I wouldn't want to turn someone off from a book. "

I agree with not wanting to discourage someone else from picking up a book that I did not enjoy, for whatever reason, but I think I should be able to say that I did not enjoy it. When I give a review like that (and they are rare), I do make sure to state what I didn't enjoy, not a blanket statement that it was a bad book. I hope that people reading that will be able to make their own decisions but still understand my feelings on the story.

Erin wrote: "Brian wrote: " When I give a review like that (and they are rare), I do make sure to state what I didn't enjoy, not a blanket statement that it was a bad book. I hope that people reading that will be able to make their own decisions but still understand my feelings on the story. "

I'm the same. More often when I rate a book 2 stars or less than 3 stars or more, I make sure to state why I did not like the book. As they say, one person's trash is another person's treasure, just because I did not like it does not mean others just might love it.

I agree with both of you, Erin and Joseph, except that I´d stopped giving reviews. I just don´t feel the need to do it anymore. Most of the authors (just look at them rating their own books with 5 stars) don´t see anything less than "amazing" so why bother at all.

³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "I agree with both of you, Erin and Joseph, except that I´d stopped giving reviews. I just don´t feel the need to do it anymore. Most of the authors (just look at them rating their own books with 5 ..."

I understand your frustration with that, ³¢Ã¡°ù²¹, but your opinion still matters.

As for authors giving their books 5 stars, I tend to avoid them. I have a book, but I won't rate it, although I have marked it as read. Of course you think your own work is good, but ratings should come from readers who have a bit more objectivity, IMO.

³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "I agree with both of you, Erin and Joseph, except that I´d stopped giving reviews. I just don´t feel the need to do it anymore. Most of the authors (just look at them rating their own books with 5 stars) don´t see anything less than "amazing" so why bother at all. "

³¢Ã¡°ù²¹, it's kind of funny you say that, about not bothering with reviews because the authors don't see anything less that 5 stars, because I never really thought about writing reviews or rating as being for the authors. I do it for fellow readers, to suggest books that are just so great you don't want to miss them, or some that are enjoyable but nothing amazing, or some so bad you shouldn't waste your time. Authors I have met range across the spectrum when it comes to reviews and ratings, some take them extremely serious and others never even bother to look at them. I guess people are people, I'm sure readers are the same way.