When I think of ratings in the form of stars, I think of Amazon and iTunes. I’m seeing a growing trend with book bloggers staring books. Why? I mean, I can get why it can be useful, but do you think that it would make someone not read the book if you give it a low rating? Isn’t the whole objective of book blogging is to make people read MORE books and get them interested in reading a certain book you enjoyed? Even if you didn’t enjoy reading the book, it doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t find it interesting. I think if there were a standard form of ratings then it would work, but aren’t all things subjective?
I wonder if fellow book bloggers ever think about the amount of influence they have on another person’s reading. You could give a book a very low rating that would make them not read it… when it could have been really interesting to them. In my reviews, I try to see the book a different way. If I don’t feel it was the right fit for me, I always give suggestions to other readers. Sometimes I think the book will be better read by an older person… or someone who can relate better. I think there is a difference between disliking the book and it not being a good fit for you.
Personally, star rating a book is pointless. Rating a book in terms of stars and numbers is pointless. I’m not shaming anyone who uses this method of reviewing, but I feel that if you said how you feel about it in a detailed way then giving a book a certain amount of stars shouldn’t be needed. Am I making sense here?
The whole point of book blogging is to get people to read. Reading should be cool. I think it is up to us to lead the way to book discovery and not get so sidetracked with actually rating them. Of course, everyone has an opinion, but even opinions portrayed in the wrong way can lead someone to read less and that isn’t the point of book blogging. There’s a fine line between sharing books you’ve read with opinions and making your review so biased that a person wouldn’t give it a try for themselves.