Discussion of review rating criteria [split from review]

[bookowlie]

When I rate books, if I would absolutely recommend a book to everyone I know, I give it four stars. If I enjoyed a book but within my circle of acquaintance there is someone who might actually ask me for a recommendation to whom I would not necessarily recommend this book, I give it three. In this case, I enjoyed the book greatly, but I know a few people (my own mother included) who wouldn't appreciate this kind of humor and might not like this book as much as I did. I consider a three star book a very good choice for me and one I would recommend to some but maybe not quite all of my book-reading cohorts. Does that help?

This line of thinking seems a little unfair to the authors whose books you are reviewing, doesn't it? People have different reading tastes so most books would not appeal to everyone. For example, if I like detective novels, I would not rate a great book less than 4 stars just because not everyone I know likes a specific genre, writing style, type of humor, etc. I can see explaining who you would or would not recommend a book to, but I can't see basing the rating on that. Just my opinion.

[gali]

When I rate books, if I would absolutely recommend a book to everyone I know, I give it four stars. If I enjoyed a book but within my circle of acquaintance there is someone who might actually ask me for a recommendation to whom I would not necessarily recommend this book, I give it three. In this case, I enjoyed the book greatly, but I know a few people (my own mother included) who wouldn't appreciate this kind of humor and might not like this book as much as I did. I consider a three star book a very good choice for me and one I would recommend to some but maybe not quite all of my book-reading cohorts. Does that help?

This line of thinking seems a little unfair to the authors whose books you are reviewing, doesn't it? People have different reading tastes so most books would not appeal to everyone. For example, if I like detective novels, I would not rate a great book less than 4 stars just because not everyone I know likes a specific genre, writing style, type of humor, etc. I can see explaining who you would or would not recommend a book to, but I can't see based the rating on that. Just my opinion.

[Daniel Ramalho]

When I rate books, if I would absolutely recommend a book to everyone I know, I give it four stars. If I enjoyed a book but within my circle of acquaintance there is someone who might actually ask me for a recommendation to whom I would not necessarily recommend this book, I give it three. In this case, I enjoyed the book greatly, but I know a few people (my own mother included) who wouldn't appreciate this kind of humor and might not like this book as much as I did. I consider a three star book a very good choice for me and one I would recommend to some but maybe not quite all of my book-reading cohorts. Does that help?

This line of thinking seems a little unfair to the authors whose books you are reviewing, doesn't it? People have different reading tastes so most books would not appeal to everyone. For example, if I like detective novels, I would not rate a great book less than 4 stars just because not everyone I know likes a specific genre, writing style, type of humor, etc. I can see explaining who you would or would not recommend a book to, but I can't see basing the rating on that. Just my opinion.

This is a very fine line for me to tread and so I will choose my words carefully. While you are indeed free to use whichever criteria you see fit in your reviews, it is an author's expectation that your review will reflect your opinion on the book alone, and not your opinion on the opinions other might have upon reading it. By that line of reasoning - and I believe this is an appropriate metaphor in this particular case -, a food critic would never give her best score to a dish with pork, no matter how good it was, if she had Muslim of Jewish friends who she could not recommend it to because it would offend them.

Like I said, your review was very insightful, really well-written, and I'm glad you liked the book. However, that kind of thinking can be detrimental to an author's pursuit of originality and ultimately, to the success of out-of-the-box literature in a market filled with cookie-cutter fluff. I am aware my writing is not for everyone. I don't write for money so that's not a problem for me. Perhaps I'm still a little sore from having three freelance editors in a row refusing to work on this book strictly because of its content before I could find one who didn't feel too offended to do it. Nevertheless, I don't feel I'm overreacting when I say a book review should reflect the reviewer's opinion only and not the potential ones of her social circle. Literary quality is what's under scrutiny, and that's it. Case in point, I am the author and I would not recommend this book to my mother either. Why do you think I wrote it in a language she can't read?

That being said, I'm happy you made that addendum to the review. It was important to know about that criterion of evaluation, and it actually made me feel even better about the review. So, thanks.

[L_Therese]

When I rate books, if I would absolutely recommend a book to everyone I know, I give it four stars. If I enjoyed a book but within my circle of acquaintance there is someone who might actually ask me for a recommendation to whom I would not necessarily recommend this book, I give it three. In this case, I enjoyed the book greatly, but I know a few people (my own mother included) who wouldn't appreciate this kind of humor and might not like this book as much as I did. I consider a three star book a very good choice for me and one I would recommend to some but maybe not quite all of my book-reading cohorts. Does that help?

This line of thinking seems a little unfair to the authors whose books you are reviewing, doesn't it? People have different reading tastes so most books would not appeal to everyone. For example, if I like detective novels, I would not rate a great book less than 4 stars just because not everyone I know likes a specific genre, writing style, type of humor, etc. I can see explaining who you would or would not recommend a book to, but I can't see basing the rating on that. Just my opinion.

I'll admit that there are flaws in my methods, but the only logical way to standardize the rating system would be to petition the site authorities to modify the rating system so that it becomes more specific. The guidelines are extremely general and wide open to interpretation. This is a small part of how I have interpreted it. I'm sorry if you don't like it, and I encourage you to offer your objections and advice to people who can alter the system in favor of a more specific rating mechanism.

[bookowlie]

I believe there is a general assumption that a rating should be based on the reviewer's own opinion of the book, not whether other people might like it. I think this goes without saying, in my opinion.

[gali]

I believe there is a general assumption that a rating should be based on the reviewer's own opinion of the book, not whether other people might like it. I think this goes without saying, in my opinion.

I agree.

[Daniel Ramalho]

I'll admit that there are flaws in my methods, but the only logical way to standardize the rating system would be to petition the site authorities to modify the rating system so that it becomes more specific. The guidelines are extremely general and wide open to interpretation. This is a small part of how I have interpreted it. I'm sorry if you don't like it, and I encourage you to offer your objections and advice to people who can alter the system in favor of a more specific rating mechanism.

I agree with the previous commentators. It should not be necessary for the site authorities to specify that when judging a book, all reviewers should exclude from their rating the feelings their personal acquaintances might experience if they ever came across said book. It should go without saying.

I would add that for the sake of your reputation as a reviewer, you should not wait until the site authorities force you to change the methods you yourself freely admitted to be flawed. If you feel you cannot bring yourself to give the highest rating to a book which you described through the use of such terms as "incredibly creative", "fascinating", "excellent", "new and different", etc., because "religion can be a touchy subject" and because you know a "few people who would not appreciate this kind of humor" (mom included), you should inform those same site authorities that you are not in a position to give an unbiased rating on account of the personal literary tastes of your close friends and relatives, and therefore excuse yourself from that role. Otherwise, you will find yourself rating not an author's quality but his choice of genre.

I do not want to see your reputation tarnished in the eyes of this audience nor those of the moderators. I am however compelled to safeguard my own, and that of a book I care deeply about precisely because it is on a touchy subject. By publishing a book like this in today's world I am sticking my neck out quite a bit, as you know because you've read it. I could just as easily have written a nice, safe detective novel, which would've probably gotten me the four stars, but I chose not to. As an author, I make it my goal to fight those who consider "offensive" literature dangerous, by writing it. My hope is that you do not allow yourself, as a reviewer, to fall on the other side of that fence.

Thanks bookowlie and gali for your support. I feel satisfied that there is sufficient evidence in this thread to conclude this book has, in fact, earned the four stars. Couple that with the objectively great review and you got yourself a happy author.

Cheers.

[Scott]

Some people may read this and see disagreement. I read it and I see that everyone is passionate about the review team system and the intricacies that go into the art of reviewing books itself.

I think that review team guidelines could be clearer about the matters being discussed.

I think that any criticism or critique regarding these matters should be directed at me without public reference to specific reviewers.

If a review doesn't meet the guidelines, or unspoken rules, it is my responsibility to not let the review be published. If there is something unclear about the guidelines, for any or all, that is also my fault.

I love the passion of everyone involved for the art of reviewing books, and the passion for providing quality reviews and a quality service here at OnlineBookClub.org.

I'm locking this topic thread now because I really want to continue the discussion of these general issues, but I want to do it in the broad context of advice or guidelines for all reviewers and policies the editors and I should use when deciding whether to publish a review or not. So I do invite any and all who want to have that broader discussion to have it with me and if you want the other members too. You can send it to me privately as a PM or publicly for group discussion through the Suggestion Box.

Thank you everyone for your passion and participation.