Whenever I finish a book and mark it on Goodreads and then give

>>9504203
>Shakespeare or Tolstoy.

This is the most retarded thing. You can rate shit like the Odyssey, not even just particular editions of book, but just the story itself.

Like who's going to rate the Epic of Gilgamesh 3 stars?

>>9504211
That's the thing, the rating is meant to be in terms of personal enjoyment, not in terms of whether you think the book is worthy of its merit objectively,

>>9504211
Stop abusing the word like, you fucking nigger.

Even worse are the people who are scared of giving 5 stars to books they really liked because they give too many 5 star ratings to books.

If I like a book it gets 5 stars

If I don't like a book it gets 1 star

you are pseud for rating in the first place, 1 or 5 stars

books do not have singular quality about them so any point based system is flawed
better to give it a 1 and write something rather than give a 5 and write nothing, at least for the appreciation sake alone

but if you did it just to get some confirmation bias then you aren't rating it for the book but for your place on this site and so on and the book and the rating system becomes the means

It's a shorthand, no need to take it too seriously. I think the best gauge for me is rating it by how likely I'd reread it or go back to certain passages.

>>9504247
its for enjoyment rating

>>9504256
no it's for confirmation

File: 7d1.jpg (49KB, 600x649px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x649px

classics

I like it - 5 stars
I don't like - 4 stars
I don't get why it's classics - 3 star

Genre Fiction:
I like it - 2 stars
I don't like it - 1 star

>>9504203
1 star - absolute trash
2 stars - bad
3 stars - *shrug*
4 stars - liked it
5 stars - really liked it

>>9504258
confirmation of what?

>>9504239
David Foster Wallace overused the word "like" in his book "Infinite Jest", and it works well. Give anon a break, senpai.

>>9504203
Rate them according to how much you liked them. Why is this so hard? Why are so many people on /lit/ on the same level as a high school girl adhering to arbitrary clothing fashion changes?

It's meant to be your opinion. Not what /lit/ certifies or what /lit/ personalities like/approve of. You're a pseud if you have no brain of your own.

>>9504342
Because converting how much you liked a book into a rigid number between 1 and 5 is borderline retarded

Literally the only reason to rate books on there is to establish how much you want their algorithms to recommend something similar, which is entirely separate from how good it is (something a star ranking is wholly inadequate for). And god help you if you actually write novel length reviews to post.

>>9504203

A 1-5 system is flawed aswell. What's the difference between 'liked it', 'really liked it, and 'it was amazing'? They're too similar.

A 1-4 system would make more sense (1 = terrible, the worst of the worst, used sparingly, 2 = it wasn't very good/OK, 3 = it was good, 4 = absolute favorite, used sparingly), and to scrap rating systems completely would make the most sense. On Goodreads I just mark books as 'read'.

File: IMG_8382.jpg (571KB, 1224x1087px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1224x1087px

>>9504203
It is reductive yet so is language itself. You embrace a degree of pseudom so that you may live in community

Who fucking cares

>5 stars - must be read by everyone
>4 stars - should be read by everyone
>3 stars - can be read by anyone
>2 stars - shouldn't be read by anyone
>1 stars - mustn't be read by anyone

>>9504216
>the rating is meant to be in terms of personal enjoyment

Yeah but that's retarded, assigning such a superficial value system to a millennia-old work.

It's completely irrelevant whether you "enjoyed" it or not.

>>9505202
What is the relevancy of the work's age?

>>9505211
>What is the relevancy of the work's age?

It's entirely foundation to the western canon of literature. It's a completely vapid way to appraise important, classic texts, and ridiculous.

>>9505202
>It's completely irrelevant whether you "enjoyed" it or not.
That's literally the only thing that matters for personal ratings, you stupid teenage fag.

>>9505221
>Calls someone a teenage fag
>Has the most teenage faggoty post in thread

No one cares what you're meaningless 5 star rating of the Bible is.

>>9505229
>hurr durr you're dumb and stupid
This site is 18+. Please, leave.

>>9505229
But the rating does have meaning, it shows that he enjoyed the work and would recommend it. You just want to virtue signal on /lit/.

>>9505238
>You just want to virtue signal

In what way?

The rating has meaning, but it's a pointless meaning.

I'm fairly shocked you anons have so much support for the 5 star system.

A classic work, a foundation text, should be beyond the need to be recommended by a superficial and off-hand ratings system. It's a fairly ridiculous example of the shallowness of social media.

should be like me op, i've never rated a single book on goodreads

https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/47618805-sheepo

I just pretend that I'm rating it out of 10 stars.
0-2: 1 star
2.1-4: 2 stars
4.1-6: 3 stars
6.1-8: 4 stars
8.1-10: 5 stars

1 star - I didn't like it
2 stars - mediocre, or acclaimed but I didn't appreciate it
3 stars - liked it
4 stars - great
5 stars - an absolute masterpiece