Ratings Confusion

I've got my knickers in a twist this week about the various rating systems that I have to work to.  I'm pretty much OK with the one I devised for this blog - it's rather vague (deliberately so) and as a result I'm comfortable using it.

The other two rating systems I use are the two different 5 star systems used at Wave's blog and at Good Reads. It's these two systems which I'm getting all in a muddle about.  It all stemmed from a discussion I had with another reviewer on Twitter over a book I'd reviewed at Wave's and given 4 stars to and yet I'd given it 3 stars at GRs.  She wanted to know why there was a discrepancy in the grades - a good point to make.  I tried to explain my reasoning but it's damned hard to make a decent point when you're only working with 140 characters at a time and frankly, I did a piss poor job of it.  Anyway, I went away wondering whether I had perhaps been a bit generous with the review grade at Wave's because I certainly didn't think it merited 4 stars at GRs.  This then got me to really consider the way that I assign grades at GRs.

Let's have a look at their system:

1 star =  Didn't like it
2 stars = It was OK
3 stars = I liked it
4 stars = I really liked it
5 stars = It was amazing

When I compare this to the thinking (at least in my head) of how Wave's star grading system works.  If I liked a book enough to have a good positive feel about it and would recommend it then it gets a grade in the 4s - moving up the scale depending on the quality of the book.  If I liked a book but there were a number of things I didn't think worked about the book it gets in the 3s.  In the case of the book in question, I felt it was written well enough to just sneak into a grade of 4 as I enjoyed reading it, would recommend it, but just felt it was perhaps a little unoriginal in its ideas.  However, I didn't 'really like it' so it got a three at GRs.

Moving away from that particular book, I've found that there are lots of other books where I've perhaps given a lower star grade at GRs than I have elsewhere.  The top 5 star grade of 'It was amazing' often puts me off giving 5 stars to a book, even if I've enjoyed the book a great deal, because it's rare that I think a book is 'amazing' - the adjective is just too effusive.  Yet, I give out quite a number of 'Excellent' grades which, if you are comparing like for like, would be the equivalent of a 5 star grade - except of course, it isn't.  I've given 'Excellent' grades out to books I've only given four stars to at GRs and at Wave's.

Do you see what I mean about getting myself in a knot about this?  Even this post is almost incoherent because I can't seem to get my head around it.  I think the only way to solve the problem is for me to state, on the record, that these two star systems are different - they have different criteria attached to them.  As a result, I will often give different ratings at GRs to that which I give here on this blog or at Wave's and that my ratings at GRs will sometimes be a bit lower than the ones I give to reviews at Wave's - not all the time, sometimes they will tally, but there will be occasional discrepancies.

Another thing I find about GRs is that I sometimes change my mind about a grade.  This has mostly to do with the fact that my GRs grade is often based on my feelings straight after finishing a book.  It's not until I then go back and think carefully about a book for the purposes of reviewing that I will then change my mind.  Sometimes I realise that the book has a number of holes in plot and characterisation which I didn't spot until later; sometimes skimming through the book gives me a better appreciation of what the author was trying to achieve.  It's at those times when I will either lower or raise the mark at GRs depending on my change in feelings.  I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that especially as GRs is basically just my thoughts on books and so should reflect any changes of heart that have occurred since reading.

What about you lot?  Do you see a 5 star rating system and just assume it all means the same?  I often look at a reviewer's own criteria when I'm visiting other blogs as I know that different reviewers have a different idea of what fits under each star.  What about GRs?  Do you find their star system a little too simplistic and not really that helpful?  Am I just having a big old fuss about nothing (again) and really the important thing is what is said in the review and not the rating at all?