Open spaces in the dialog: why "I didn't like it" and "bad" aren't the same.

Yeah. I love a review that tells me what the review author thinks of something so I can measure my tastes versus her tastes to figure out how reliable the review will be to predict whether I will like the book.

This may be why half my reviews turn into 'what I think about this trope in fiction'. I also think I've used the line 'this was not the book I expected, so I didn't enjoy it as much as I might have otherwise'. Which... I've had that happen; where the author presents a situation and I'm all 'tell me more' and she focuses on the 'boring bits'* and I'm all 'but... but... look over there! I want to know about that!'. Which tends to mean I'll be less happy than when the author says 'I am going to tell you a romance story about romance' and I'm all 'that's cool'. (Different from a twist in that the author just has a different idea of what kind of story she wanted to tell.)

* Well, things I find boring, hence the quotes.

This really connects with me because I was at a con this past weekend and heard a statement similar to, "You can start with an easy writer like [X] and, later, graduate to someone like" and I was all ready to hear who the ultimate talent might be...and he named someone who leaves me totally cold. So that old thing of what's meat for one person is poison for another makes all kinds of sense to me today.

(Also, 'dishes'?)

I hate to write reviews because I can never forget that a real person wrote that book/made that film, and that it matters to them. So I duck reviews, or end up being anodyne, or -- at most, saying 'this part didn't work for me because of X, but that's just me and others may well think differently.'
The one time I gave a low rating out of five (for good reasons to do with mis-selling, not my opinions), the person on the other end immediately deluged me with demands I retract. So I now avoid the whole thing.
I'm such an internet wimp. (In person is a whole other matter.)

First, thanks for the Parasite Rex recommendation. It's on my holiday shopping list now, because I have the absolute perfect person to receive it.

Second, thanks for the reminder to explain myself when I talk about books I've read. When I write my reviews, on GoodReads or elsewhere, I try to explain what I liked or disliked, but what I'm not so good about is explaining my context. As you said - you hate shoe shopping, so fewer choices might be better. If I say "Look, only six choices!" no one will know if I'm happy about it, or not, nor will they know why...

I am very, very much with you on this one. A romantic comedy is generally not aiming for depth. If it succeeds to be entertaining without running into major structural issues or wandering into problematic territory? I'll probably give it three stars.

3 stars from me means "I was reasonably entertained, there are no major flaws (or that the movie/book/whatever was very uneven), and I am satisfied." Most things are middling. This is what *average* means folks.

Well said.

Great article!

I'd like to request reprint permission on Cruise Critic and Trip Advisor (yes, they are travel sites but your overall point holds - credit will be given, of course!)

This did just prompt me to write a list of "what the star ratings mean" on my blog now. Good point, Seanan!

For me, the "okay, just not for me" books usually fall into the 3-star category. Not bad, but not a major winner.

You get a 5 out of 5 stars for referencing my favorite strip in my favorite comic.

i write Goodreads reviews on the basis that i am writing post-its for future-me to remember what i thought.

i do tend to be positive, although i might mention things i didnt like, but i tend to assume the only person reading my reviews is me :)

also, i use the comments to remind myself what i thought/why i gave it 3 stars ("liked it/it was ok") etc... i very rarely give below 3 stars, tbh.

Oh Goodreads rankings how much you cause grinding of teeth. I read a LOT and I use the scale and what they call each star to heart. So when I do see someone giving every book they read 5 stars I don't bother to friend them back. Because really can every book you read be amazing because I don't have that kind of luck when I am reading. I read several series that I give 2 stars and Goodreads says that is an OK book. Granted I may only be reading it for the lultz or hoping that there will be a payoff by the time they finish the story arc.

Also years ago I stopped reading most of the book reviews in Locus because it seemed that only one reviewer and I liked the same books. Most everything else being reviewed just didn't interest me that much.

I've never put much stock into ratings. I don't think they're an efficient means to express how one feels about something. They're far too subjective and lack any real detail.

That's not to say that a review is necessarily a perfect guide either. I certainly do utilize them in finding new books or other items that I'm interested in. But I think you need to be open to the fact that your personal experience isn't going to be the same as another person's, no matter how close your opinions might be.

I'm even more loathe to give any notice to ratings after a rather, um, unpleasant experience awhile back where I had changed a rating I made (without altering the review itself) and it got quite horribly out of hand. But what truly boggled my mind (other than the whole it getting out of hand) was the person's insistence that the rating change itself was such an important thing. Like I had gone from one extreme to another in my feelings, when in all honesty I had rather arbitrarily given the rating...Oh, well.

I hear ya, and I'll confess I'm one of the people who assigns "soft numbers" to all kinds of things. It's a necessary evil of trade studies, where we examine various solutions to some systems engineering problem. Part of the trade study is assigning "metrics" to the different available choices. Yes, it's arbitrary, and yes, it often results in a skewed representation. Especially when a really good product happens to be totally wrong for a particular application. Corporate representatives calling headquarters asking why their product has been maligned with a ranking of 3, when other systems studies have ranked it a 5, are a real problem.

I can see how it's even worse in these situations you're seeing, since the very subjective rankings are being bundled into a single metric that is then used to influence consumer choices. At least I *know* the limits of the soft numbers I assign.

I do the same thing on Goodreads - for me, 3 of 5 stars is "this was a perfectly cromulent book, and I might read it again." 4 stars is really darn good, and 5 is just astonishing.

And yet I see so many people doing "I picked this book up by accident and also it did not involve baby seals wearing tutus despite being titled A Compleat History of Waffles" and therefore it sucks. 1 star." that it drives me batty.

Thus: bloggers (and reading actual reviews instead of just the star rating) ftw. A few of our books have gotten really thoughtful reviews by bloggers, which I appreciate more than I can say. Erekos is really, really not for everyone, and I want to hug every blogger/reviewer who addresses that. "This book is gorgeously written; it just didn't do it for me, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to knock down the rating" means a lot more than "ONE STAR!!!!!ELEVENTYONE!!!!"

Hell, there's a few books that I've picked up specifically because the review said, "I didn't like it because of X" and X was something I was interested in. Critical (not necessarily NEGATIVE) reviews are gold.

You have just explained, beautifully, why I am very fond of the phrases, "It's the sort of thing you'd like, if you like that sort of thing" and "Your [noun] is okay, it's just not my [noun]".

*cheers you on*

I've given a 3-star review to something because 3 stars is what I do with "competent work, has flaws," but I wrote that because it was totally not the story I was expecting, I might be unfairly dinging it a star. And then I wrote about how it is not a light, fluffy, cute SF story, but is instead TWILIGHT ZONE. As Twilight Zone, wrote I, it seems to work (I'm not really a Twilight Zone fan, so I can't be extremely positive), and if it'd been billed as Twilight Zone and not broader SF, I might've liked it more.

Hm. For 4 and 5 stars, I can be content to flail around and go, "IS GUD BUK YES!" If I go to 3 or lower, I want to express what I thought the flaws were -- and, if it's from someone I want to like, I try to clearly express what the positive aspects are, too.

I like thoughtful negative reviews. (And also, I have decided that even Bad Books/Movies/TV have a wonderful place in life: it serves to inspire totally snarky reviews that make me giggle.)

I love a good, honest book blog review. I've seen too many instances where one influential book blogger says a certain thing and suddenly, every other book blogger says that same thing. I HATE THAT.

There are a few out there who really stand out because they give honest reviews, tell WHY they feel that way, and use examples from the book to illustrate it.

I mostly hang in the YA book circles, so it might be different than the adult book blog circles.

Give the coconut to me. Give the coconut to Donnnaaaaaaa.... There. Coconut problem solved. As for the shoes?

After working for two shoe companies, I still only have four pairs of shoes and I don't wear three of them regularly. Come to think of it, that pair is worn out and I need to get a new set to replace them. Who has more shoes? Jim. Seriously.

I now work for a furniture importer as well. I fear for my little house once I decide to bring some of the perks home with me.

I also stopped with the GoodReads - um, everything actually. One, I couldn't keep up with the reading AND posting about the reading. So yes, I have read more books - a lot more books - than anyone would get from looking at my profile. Reading the books is good - posting about reading the books, really really optional and not done often if at all. Rating? Oh dear ghads, that's voting for something again isn't it. Watch me run. There is the odd duck once in a while - when I think something is So Good Everyone Needs To Know - but that's rare.

Amazon reviews, I generally ignore entirely. The ability to read sample pages is far more useful, in my experience.

Thank you for saying this about Glee, BTW. I have been really putting part of my head on the shelf to watch this thing on occasion. My college education is beating me senseless screaming 'you've got to TELL THEM what's really going on here! Did you just see that holy cow myrtle!' My sleep schedule is winning this battle, just saying.

I am very able to say that I am not everyone's cup of tea, on any given day and that is subject to change the next time you encounter me. This rule applies to all things - except for repaircritters who break things instead of repair them, customer disservice done with a smirk and food that wants to kill you. Those guys, I tell on - loud and proud.

I hate voting for things. I've come to the conclusion I really really do.

(Also, you'd appreciate this. Bell peppers? Were the only vegetable anything I could get Cliff to eat on a routine basis. Our first date? He made me dinner. Stuffed bell peppers. It's love, I tell you - when you gratefully eat the stuffing and offer the shell back - neh? I learned to make dish after dish with the #@%^!EWEWEW#@$%! things in them. I have had no regrets since his passing when it comes to the lack of contact I have with bell peppers. But I can definitely cook something delicious if someone desires the dish, lemme tell ya. Love, I tell you.)

I have often seen Roger Ebert lament the need for stars, or thumbs up or down, in his reviews. He seems to understand that the typical reader needs or wants or expect stars, and that his TV show needed the quick and easy assessment, even if he goes into greater detail in print or sitting opposite Gene Siskel.

But it's interesting that the stars don't necessarily mean the same thing. Four stars for a Nolan Batman film doesn't necessarily mean that it's superior to a four star film like The Social Network. It only means that each is the best film you can except to find within its genre and budget and goals. In other words, it's even more subjective than you think.

And yet...when I go to Ebert's website on a typical Thursday, the first thing I do is look at the stars. And not at even the first lines of the review. As much as everything you say about the meaningless numerical review is true, after so many years of being drowned in them, we sometimes still flock to them.

Parasite Rex:

(petting the shelf of books with that and the ones on virology) reading about the human body imploding or bleeding out .. all before breakfast...

(I call my sister Imelda when we are looking at shoes, I have literally seen her buy every color of a shoe that she likes...)

The problem I often have when reviewing is that, for the publication I publish in, I have to take me out of it. So, when on Goodreads I would say, "Five stars, my favorite book in the series, I love that the lead character is so complex and has grown and is very close to my heart. I will buy these books on release day every year, and you should too!" For my publisher, I must say, "A good addition to the series, lots of interesting character growth...Librarians should buy this if their patrons like x, y, and z." which to me, feels like a less effusive, stilted way of saying I love it, and I feel kind of cheated that I can't say everything I want to say.

The hardest thing of all is writing a bad review, because as another commenter mentions, you have to sit and think, "There's a real person who wrote this..."

Making both more difficult is that my editors don't communicate much beyond "Thanks for your review. It will be published on this date." I don't get constructive criticism because I'm not a paid reviewer, and I don't really know what they like and don't like.

I can't agree more; there's a reason that, as a reviewer (even a tiny, dinky one on LiveJournal) I refuse to use a rating system, even if it might be more convenient for the casual reader, and it's why I rather like The Speculative Scotsman as a reviewer, even when I don't agree with him. Saying "This is a bad book" only means something when a) you can explain why and b) you're also willing to say (as I have a couple of times in the past) this is a good book, just not for me.

The other thing is balance in reviews; if you're going to give a bad review of a book, you need to not relentlessly focus on the negative unless there really isn't a positive, and even in a strong review, it's foolish to not note where it could be improved (there's no such thing, however much we might like to think otherwise, as the perfect book).

But that's just my tuppence.

One of my favorite Penny Arcade strips ever. XD I am quite glad that's how you roll. XD

I always feel like I'm in a secret sisterhood when I encounter other women who don't care about shoes. Almost always, those women go gaga for office supplies. We're just A Different Breed.

Totally with you on the ranking issue. What one person hates about a book might be exactly what I'd like, so knowing they hate it without knowing why is utterly useless.