3 ms·

I think it is better for ruling things out rather than shortlisting. A rating below 4.0 is a guaranteed bad read (IMHO) but above 4.0 is not guaranteed of a goo

by voisin 3y ago

I think it is better for ruling things out rather than shortlisting. A rating below 4.0 is a guaranteed bad read (IMHO) but above 4.0 is not guaranteed of a good read.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Many books I've liked have <4.0 on Goodreads. But you're kind of right that I will usually take that as a bad sign that needs to be outweighed by some other reason to read it (like a personal recommendation or whatever).
tikhonj 3y ago
A lot of my absolutely favorite books are rated below 4.0. A few examples: 1. White Noise at 3.86 2. Catch-22 at 3.99 3. Dhalgren at 3.77 4. At Swim-Two-Birds at 3.86 5. Midnight's Children at 3.98 6. Омон Ра at 3.90 7. Never Let Me Go at 3.84 Drawing the line at 4 rules out some of the most interesting books. In my experience, you really have to fall below 3.5 to get consistently bad books, and even then it's not 100% guaranteed.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Woolf’s To the Lighthouse and Orlando are under a 4. But under a 4 is guaranteed bad? LOLWUT. And that’s just the first author I checked. Vonnegut’s Deadeye Dick (less of a crowd pleaser than his handful of biggest books, but certainly not in the bottom tier of his works) is under a 4. The A Man Without a Country collection, which is more of interest as a curiosity than because much of it’s good, is over a 4. Yeah, you may as well flip a coin.
- tarboreus 3y ago
  Anything assigned in a high school or college English class gets a huge ding, because people who don't want to read it are forced to and, predictably , hate it.
langsoul-com 3y ago
Generalised rating systems aren't really that great. Given how general they are. Imagine if a book is advanced Sci Fi, as in the concepts are built on exiting and other well known scifi books. The normal reader won't understand and think it's terrible. The actual target audience, Sci Fi book nerds, would love it.

by voisin 3y ago

I think it is better for ruling things out rather than shortlisting. A rating below 4.0 is a guaranteed bad read (IMHO) but above 4.0 is not guaranteed of a good read.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

Many books I've liked have <4.0 on Goodreads. But you're kind of right that I will usually take that as a bad sign that needs to be outweighed by some other reason to read it (like a personal recommendation or whatever).

tikhonj 3y ago

A lot of my absolutely favorite books are rated below 4.0. A few examples: 1. White Noise at 3.86 2. Catch-22 at 3.99 3. Dhalgren at 3.77 4. At Swim-Two-Birds at 3.86 5. Midnight's Children at 3.98 6. Омон Ра at 3.90 7. Never Let Me Go at 3.84 Drawing the line at 4 rules out some of the most interesting books. In my experience, you really have to fall below 3.5 to get consistently bad books, and even then it's not 100% guaranteed.

hotnfresh 3y ago
Woolf’s To the Lighthouse and Orlando are under a 4. But under a 4 is guaranteed bad? LOLWUT. And that’s just the first author I checked. Vonnegut’s Deadeye Dick (less of a crowd pleaser than his handful of biggest books, but certainly not in the bottom tier of his works) is under a 4. The A Man Without a Country collection, which is more of interest as a curiosity than because much of it’s good, is over a 4. Yeah, you may as well flip a coin.
tarboreus 3y ago
Anything assigned in a high school or college English class gets a huge ding, because people who don't want to read it are forced to and, predictably , hate it.

langsoul-com 3y ago

Generalised rating systems aren't really that great. Given how general they are. Imagine if a book is advanced Sci Fi, as in the concepts are built on exiting and other well known scifi books. The normal reader won't understand and think it's terrible. The actual target audience, Sci Fi book nerds, would love it.