I blogged about rating books last month, but I’d like to revisit that topic today. In the last week, I’ve read at least three blog posts about rating books, which have caused me to wonder if my criteria is too strict. Since I started an account at Goodreads, I’ve been giving most books a 3-stars rating, but now I know many people see that as a thumbs down.
Currently, this is what my ratings mean:
• 5 stars = I loved the book and will read it again … possibly more than once.
• 4 stars = I really liked the book and most likely will read it again.
• 3 stars = I liked the book and enjoyed the read, but might not read it again. You never know. Sometimes a 3 star turns into a 4 star for me.
• 2 stars = Reading it wasn’t a waste of time, but I had problems with it. I doubt I’d read it again.
• 1 star = For me, reading it was a waste of time, and I might not have finished it.
Often, I just rate the book, not write a review, so it’s likely my 3-stars has been seen as a negative. I’m probably bringing down the average rating, when that was not my intent. I’m wondering if I should spend time re-evaluating my posted ratings.
Your turn, a lot of questions today: What does a 3-stars rating mean to you? Do you have a personal rating system? In a five-star system, what percentage of books do you rate 5-stars? Do you consider the average rating on a book before you rate it, or stick to your standards no matter what?
[tweetmeme source=”cassidylewis” only_single=false]