People keep mentioning reviews on GoodReads, but to me, aggregate scores there always seemed pretty much useless. The whole scope of grades from ‘eh’ to ‘joll

People keep mentioning reviews on GoodReads, but to me, aggregate scores there always seemed pretty much useless. The whole scope of grades from ‘eh’ to ‘jolly good book’ is in the range from 4.0 to 4.5—and it's not even a clear gradation from worse to better, they're sorta mixed up instead. Plus a lot of outliers: okay books above 4.5 or excellent ones at or below 4.0. Never once could use the site to see if I should or shouldn't read some book. A compressed score range itself is not a problem, it just needs to have a clear gradation of values, with not too many outliers. E.g. on IMDB movies range from 6.5 for watchable to 7.0 for good-ish to ~8 for excellent, with 8.5 being genius. On Rotten Tomatoes, 75% is pretty good, 85% is excellent, >90% is either immediate classic or a superhero movie (not hard to tell apart). Metacritic is similar to IMDB in regard to games. However, seeing as books are often politicized and get good reviews only due to the political message (e.g. Ayn Rand), perhaps the scores are bound to be bogus anyway.