It's just semantics. 3.5 out of 5 is the same as 7 out of 10.

Some study's have started using a 7 scale and I really like that. You have a definite median score of 4. Then 3 levels of positive or negative adjustments.

To answer why 5 and not 10, personally I think it's for similar reasons. You get a definite median in 3 with an equal number of options either way. Whereas with 10 you get a median of 5 with 5 numbers up and only 4 down (not counting 0 as an option).

Personally I like 7 but since that's not an option most places I settle for 5 with decimals i.e. 3.5, 4.5, etc.

I guess I haven't seen too many people use 3.25 as an example and this losing let's say 7.5. Not saying it doesn't happen just haven't seen it myself.

That makes a lot a sense as I mentioned on another comments I guess for me personally I just think we lose our on more halfs since I don't see people using 3.25 = 7.5 so instead of having 20 units of measurement we only get half.

My ratings go to 11.

Marty DiBergi : Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder? Nigel Tufnel : [pause] These go to eleven.

The only problem with a scale of 7 is that its debatable if a perfect score is a 7/7 or a 5/7.

Amazon considers a 3 (of 5) star a bad review and the algorithm acts accordingly. In reviewing books (or any product) whatever personal rating system you may have devised, it’s not always relevant depending upon the platform.

Understood that reference gif

[deleted]

Too much fine shading sucks the joy out of it for me.

I feel you. I'm the opposite half the enjoyment for me when I read a book is the rating I'll give it, how long it took me to read, how many pages I read per day etc..

[deleted]

We all try to quantify and make sense of our world. At some point as you get more responsibilities, you'll just read books for pleasure.

More responsibilities? How many more can I get? Can't I read for more than just pleasure?

Yet the, amazon owned, goodreads rating guide translates, 2 as ok, 3 as good, 4 as very good, and 5 as amazing.

But, yeah - a 3 feels a bit luke warm when you're looking for 4-5s typically.

I go with 5 because it is so prevalent and achieve the same as you by using decimals eg 3.5

What about 7.5 do people use 3.25? Genuinely curious.

Statistically your going to get to the same place with 5 or 10. People think their ratings are more nuanced/fine tuned than they really are. The following is more than sufficient for most...

• 1 = Hated it
• 3 = It was OK
• 5 = Loved it

Unless people use .25 in a 5 point rating it is isn't it?

Keep it simple. 1 star= ugh...wish 0 stars were an option. 2 stars= meh, 3 stars = OK, I guess, 4 stars = that's good, would read again, 5 stars = perfection

I suppose, I could break it down farther, but that's enough for me.

Yeah at the end of the day it's your own preference I was just wondering why it was the norm.

Most of the rating systems don't allow anything other than whole numbers. You only get the .25 or .5 because of the averages. These are really meaningless. People don't really differentiate that way. With ratings people are just looking for the am I going to hate it, think it's OK, or love it shortcut.

To make it easier for you, think about it this way...What's the difference to you when you see a 4 or a 4.5? It's likely not a significant impact on your decision making. However, if 10,000 reviews said it's a 4.5 verses 10 reviews say it's a 4.5 you're probably more likely to give it a shot. The different isn't the score itself but the weight of the number of reviews at that score. To get there you could have a large number of 5s along with a large number of 3s or a large number of 4s. It doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is the aggregate.

Makes a lot of sense. I was asking on a personal level because bi personally don't look at reviews and ratings. I like to only read recommendations and go in not books blindly (aside from authors I already enjoy). I feel like if I read 5 books .5 will make a huge difference if they were all meh but some were better than others so you're meh.5

Just my opinion on my own rating.

I suppose, I am not the only one, who'd rather not spend time, trying to decide how to decide whether this good book is better than that other good book and if do, how much.

I have ranked light novels a 5. Let's admit the writing isn't great. There are 5star books, that are much better written. But if I return to those simple books again and again, they deserve a five as much as this well written book with great prose and depth of character, that I may reread in a year. If my backlog allows.

In the end rankings on amazon or goodread are personal opinions.

P.s. I was referring to "Restaurant to another World " and "The Hands of the Emperor ". Both 5s. One for the sheer joy and comfort the books bring, the other for it's beauty, scope and hidden depth.

No worries. I think you'd actually find more value from just finding a few people that have similar tastes to your own and then using their "I hated it", "It was OK," or "I loved it" standard. Everything's subjective so one man's treasure is another man's trash.

Exactly

For me, I tend to rate out of 5 stars since that is what Goodreads uses and that is where I am most likely to rate books.

My personal rating breakdown:

5 stars: excellent or top tier in its genre

4 stars: good or very good

3 stars: either consistently mediocre or else a mix of great highs and terrible lows balancing out to a middle of the pack eating.

2 stars: a disappointment and frustrating read

1 Star: so bad I have never used this rating. Probably more likely to DNF than finish since this would be a book I find nothing redeemable in.

Because we're rating books, not Olympic ice dancing.

I just like less stars.

5 = I loved this book.

4 = It was a good reading experience.

3 = It was an okay reading experience with no regrets.

2 = I didn’t like it and kinda wish I had my time back.

1 = I hated it and I’d get a time machine to get my time if I could.

idk a 1-10 rating system feels like too much to me. If I’m in between then I just add half a star. I know some people give a 1-star rating if they do not finish (dnf) a book but I never rate dnf books.

Edit: Formatting.

Basically I stick to the 5 star system because that's what goodreads uses, and that's the primary online resource I use for tracking, rating, etc. In my own records I go from 0 to 5, in 1/4 increments (as of now I've only given 3 books zero stars, because usually if I hate a book that much and have no hope of a complete turn around I'll DNF it pretty quickly). I have tried scaled with more precision like 0-100, but I find that there's just too much movement over time, like I would have to re-rate too many books every few years, because now I think a book is 71 rather than 68, or 90 rather than 93.

Almost completely agree with your breakdown. But I give 1 star ratings occasionally, to books that are so bad I'm honestly insulted by them.

Same - I give stars on Goodreads because it helps me remember (especially if someone asks for a rec) what I really loved and what was fair-to-middling. But I read for fun, not as a literary critic, and I don't need an incredibly specific rating system.

Yeah one of my professors had our class do an exercise on how we think presentations should be graded. He preferred a 5-level system because it gets harder to objectively define the difference between two adjacent levels when the increments are finer.

Which made sense, he wanted to be fair and objective. I think when you get into the “finer shades” as you say, one tends to rate based on comparison to other books too much. Like “A and B were both great, but I liked A just a teensy bit better, so I’ll rate them 9 and 8.5” Which is fine and all for your personal book ratings if that’s what you prefer. Not so great for students when you give one 90 and another 85 but can’t explain where the difference comes from.

I think the important part is clearly defining the 3 in a 1-5 system.

Like if 3 is "bare minimum for success", then 5 can be "perfect in every way we're measuring", and 4 can be "does more than the minimum but isn't perfect". Then 1 can be "absolute failure" and 2 can be "gets some things right, but not enough to satisfy the bare minimum."

That all seems pretty intuitive and accessible. Students who get 2s and 4s can go to the teacher during office hours to get more detailed insight on what they got right, and what they missed to fall short of the higher score. You don't need to be handing out 6, 7, 8, 9, like there has to be these very precise, measurable shades of 4.

Except you can’t actually use 3.5 except as a footnote to the star rating you actually give a book.

See this is why I like TheStoryGraph. It's a 5-star scale, yes, but it lets you do 0.5 and 0.25 stars, so really it's a 20-star scale if you want to get that specific.

This is good to know.

More than 5 and you start to get hung up on distinctions that aren't very meaningful. Sort of like in science class when they teach you about significant figures.

What I think would be cool would be a 2-dimensional scale. Something like separate ratings for "How much did you enjoy this book?" and "How good is this book as a work of literature?" Because there are plenty of books I've read that are high in one or the other of these but not both, and that's where I struggle with a simple 5 star scale.

FWIW, here's my mental definition of the 5 star levels when rating a book such as on Goodreads:

1 star = Bad. Didn't finish, or finished but really hated it.

2 stars = Not good. Maybe didn't finish. Had a lot of issues.

3 stars = Fine. May be entertaining but poorly written, or well written but didn't work for me. Had some issues.

4 stars = Good. I really liked it. Not perfect but strengths greatly outweighed the flaws.

5 stars = Excellent. I would read this again. This book has earned a place as a physical copy on my bookshelves. Few or no flaws.

I never understood the five star rating method anyway, especially when it came to things that are subjective like books or movies. One man's trash is another man's treasure as the saying goes.

I think at the point where you want a more nuanced review of a book you'll have to do some reading and adding more stars won't make it any more clear. People usually write why they gave a particular rating anyway. Having more stars doesn't make them have to write any less. 37.5 Stars "Ah he finds Hemingway's lack of first hand experience in war blatant compared to Orwell's and thus not as good at writing a story about it, I see clearly now with the right amount of stars."

Anyway, here’s Lick My Love Pump

[deleted]

The review you had on "Shark Sandwich", which was merely a two-word review, just said "Shit sandwich."