Readers tend to use star ratings to rank/rate the books they’ve read. Since 1-5 stars is so ambiguous, I think it’s important for reviewers to mention what their star ratings mean. It gives readers an important benchmark framework through which to read the reviews.
What do my star ratings mean?
I have been rating books on Goodreads for far longer than I’ve been on Bookstagram or book blogging, so I tend to base my reviews on what their star ratings mean:
Most of my ratings fall between 3 and 4 stars. As the chart shows, a three-star rating is a good rating! It means I liked the book and would recommend it. I save five stars for my all-time favorite books, to differentiate them from the crowd. And even then, many of my favorite books I’ve given a four.
I’ve recently heard authors say that 3-star ratings aren’t good, and Amazon and other online retailers deprioritize any books that have less than 4.5-star ratings. To combat this, on Goodreads and Amazon I’ll round up when I’m undecided between a 3 and a 4.
I usually don’t give star ratings to books I DNF before 50%. If I read more than 50%, I may or may not give a star rating but always give a reason for DNFing when I post a rating online.
I tend not to give star ratings to memoirs and nonfiction, although I may put a star rating on Goodreads if I liked it to give the author a boost.
What about half-star ratings?
I tend not to bother with half-star ratings. I’ll sometimes give one on the blog if I’m undecided, but for the most part I stick to full numbers 1-5. I feel this helps keep the rating clear for my blog readers.
What about you?
Do you agree on star ratings, or do yours mean something different?