I haven't had a discussion-y post in a longgg time, so I'm finally going to!
Today's choice of topic: Ratings.
Some of you may have noticed when you read one of my reviews, you don't see a rating at the end/beginning of the post(I used to though! But I started getting frustrated with rating). Why is this? The simply answer is because it's really difficult for me to choose between especially 3 and 4 stars. But the long version is...
Ratings are so overdone. There, I said it. And if you think about it, they are even a bit stereotypical.
Definition of Stereotypical:
A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, image.
This is exactly what ratings do, they oversimplify what we think of a book. Sometimes, this can be a good thing. Most people even love simple ratings, but not me. For me, it doesn't tell me anything, though, besides to maybe tell if a person disliked/ loved a book.
I mean, for example, what if I give a book I enjoyed a lot a 3 stars, but didn't connect with the main character and another book I give the same reason, but didn't really like it, but the story was well-written. There are so many factors to giving ratings, it boggles my mind. I usually can get a good idea of what I could give the book, but I almost always want to give or take 4 stars down to, say, 3.67.
Goodreads, as many of you probably know, uses a basic 5 star scale rating. I understand that having decimal places for ratings might get complicated, but I'm just saying it bothers me how ratings basically oversimplifies what we think.