Why is 5 stars the go to rating?

Submitted by iamwhoiwasnow t3_10q42zz in books

I understand that we can use whatever rating we want and it's all preference. That's why I use 1-10 rating as I feel there's a brtter chance to be more specific with your rating with a 1-10 rating. 1 really bad 5 average 10 amazing. Seems like a reasonable jump and 1 really bad 3 average 5 amazing just makes it seem like there's leeway to separate books that are amazing but aren't average either. Not at 4s all the same. I personally haven't shared my personal ratings just for the simple fact that they always seem out of place when everyone is using 5 star ratings.

I'm curious why is 5 star the go to and why do you use it? If you don't use the 5 star rating then what do you use? Also do you ever change the rating of a previously read book after reading other books and realizing the book was either better or worst than the newer books you've read?

EDIT: I see this post and some of my comments being down voted. Wasn't aware I was attacking anyone or saying something controversial. Maybe this isn't the place to talk about books unless your have the same opinions as most?

11

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Zanish t1_j6npg1g wrote

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.

27

AtraMikaDelia t1_j6nqxqx wrote

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

14

iamwhoiwasnow OP t1_j6npuka wrote

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.

1

noknownothing t1_j6nqe0z wrote

My ratings go to 11.

27

FNG_Red t1_j6nqt2v wrote

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.

12

Yanowknow t1_j6phf9m wrote

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

4

ViniVidiVelcro t1_j6o30qe wrote

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.

20

PunkandCannonballer t1_j6ofv51 wrote

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.

4

lucia-pacciola t1_j6nrbv8 wrote

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

14

reapersdrones t1_j6oj4ra wrote

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.

5

lucia-pacciola t1_j6om7aa wrote

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.

3

iamwhoiwasnow OP t1_j6nrhwl wrote

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..

3

Yanowknow t1_j6ntmeh wrote

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.

−2

iamwhoiwasnow OP t1_j6nw6qw wrote

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

2

fragments_shored t1_j6oghj5 wrote

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.

0

spamjwood t1_j6nynq3 wrote

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
11

iamwhoiwasnow OP t1_j6nywz5 wrote

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

−4

spamjwood t1_j6o0pd7 wrote

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.

5

iamwhoiwasnow OP t1_j6o16qo wrote

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.

2

spamjwood t1_j6o1m7t wrote

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.

4

Pangaea13 t1_j6npc1k wrote

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

10

iamwhoiwasnow OP t1_j6npkkt wrote

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.

3

Previous_Injury_8664 t1_j6opwvk wrote

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

2

slowmokomodo t1_j6od1d7 wrote

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

10

shrugaholic t1_j6odzus wrote

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.

4

GRCooper t1_j6nqy9a wrote

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.

3

jakobjaderbo t1_j6nxm7y wrote

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.

3

selahvg t1_j6oeek4 wrote

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.

2

Temporary-Koala-8940 t1_j6nzmrr wrote

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.

1

iamwhoiwasnow OP t1_j6nzs7p wrote

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

1

Temporary-Koala-8940 t1_j6o19w7 wrote

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.

3

Myythically t1_j6orpmk wrote

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.

1

-rba- t1_j6osz7u wrote

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.

1

-rba- t1_j6otuyt wrote

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.

0

Ealinguser t1_j6nybnv wrote

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

0

Zed_Hudson t1_j6p5e86 wrote

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."

0

route66timetraveler t1_j6p4d35 wrote

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.

−2