Books

I don’t look at stars I just read books that I think might be interesting

The Goodreads rating system is just fundamentally flawed. The range of rating for books is not 1 to 5 stars, it's 3.00 to 4.00 stars. Any book with any notoriety I've read falls somewhere between 3 and 4. The more ratings, the more likely this is. I find the rating system at best useless and most likely actively harmful.

Which is all besides the point. No one else can tell me whether I'll like a given book or not. I hate Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but it's a highly lauded story. Should I force myself to like it because people disagree with me? I can appreciate that people view the work different from me and sometimes enjoy reading actual reviews I vehemently disagree with. A written review is, anyway, much more useful when considering a book. Though I don't really read books based on reviews, I just try to find books that seem interesting to me in one way or another.

The star rating system can disregarded offhand.

I just finished a two book series that was objectively awful. It had some of the worst writing I've read, although the world building was great. It has a 4.2 rating on goodreads. If you read the reviews, though, you can see that the 5 stars are just "I liked this fun book!" The negative reviews delve deeply into WHY it was so damn bad.

My favorite series also has a 4.2 rating. The difference is the 4 and 5 star ratings have deep reviews saying why the series is so good.

Going by ratings is a terrible way to go through life.

Also, you view a 3.98 as not good enough? You are missing out on a world of great experiences, even if somewhat flawed.

I can’t say I have ever considered a books rating before I read it.

Mostly I consider who wrote it and the genre for fiction.

I don't look at ratings. I couldn't tell you a single rating for a single book I've ever read. I also don't rate books. I either enjoy them to varying degrees, or I don't. Sorry if this is not helpful for your post; but it's worth adding that there's no right way or wrong way to read, and if it brings you joy, do your thing. Just be aware that you can change your mind, you don't have to follow this system you've built.

Four stars on what rating system?

Bot are cheap, stars are a lie

Stars? I never look at ratings. I read based on the writers i know, those that are recommended to me, topics that interest me, worlds that might captivate me.

Can't say I have ever in my life looked into the star rating of a book. I don't pay attention to this information when it is there. I look at written reviews occasionally, but never starred reviews.

4 stars is too high a bar. There are plenty of books that receive 4.5 stars that I rate as 3, and occasionally 2. Of course there is a correlation, but it's weak. A lot of the old Reddit darlings (probably now also Lemmy darlings) are a bit meh for me, and so conversely, a lot of less popular books are good for me.

I think I wouldn't go below 3 stars on rating sites like Goodreads/storygraph. That's where the correlation seems to make it make sense. The current book i haven't read for several days because it sucks is rated 3.6...

Reviews are subjective. The greatest book in the world to you could be the worst book in the world to someone else. Read what sounds interesting.

If I find the content interesting, I'll read it, if I find the author interesting, I'll read it, if a friend recommends it, I'll read it.

It's not much effort to read, you can always stop reading and put the book away. If it's not worth your time. Libraries are great for this, pick up a book. Read a little bit. Decide if you want to keep reading...

Similar to the other commentor who ignores stars and only reads reviews, I do something similar, but I mostly only read negative reviews.

The problem I have is that positive reviews too often just uncritically praise the book, telling me nothing about why the book is good or why it might be bad. (And the fact that bots are so prevalent only makes this phenomenon worse).

On the other hand, negative reviews often directly state what the reader disliked about the book. So, I hunt through negative reviews to find reviews that hint, or directly mention having elements of the book that I like/am in the mood for.

For example, one time I was in the mood for fantasy where the protaganist does magical research. So I found this one book and started looking through reviews, and I saw this 2/5 star review where the reviewer was complaining "MC never fights, they just research and grind in the lab all day". I started reading that book immediately, and I had a great time.

Pretty much the definition of "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", and the evils of perfectionism. Star ratings only speak to super general appeal. A higher rating is less risky to be bad... But the time and place to care about that is such a limited context. What I'm in the mood for or looking for in a moment rarely has anything to do with appealing to the masses, and it's often the kinds of writings I look for to expand my sense of experience & knowledge will lack general appeal.

I just grab whatever has an interesting cover from the library. Find some surprisingly good books but some real stinkers also.

I just go to the library and if a title grabs my attention I read the back and if that grabs my attention I make sure it’s not in first person. Then I check it out.

I ignore stars.

I read reviews.

If the reviewer shares tastes and warrants with me, I will pay attention to their opinions and recommendations (pro or con). If the reviewer's tastes and warrants are opposed to mine, I will again pay attention to their opinions and recommendations ... and go the opposite direction. If the reviewer can't really get their point across, I ignore that review and move on to the next.

Ratings mean nothing.

I just checked the goodread metric of the books I recently read that I considered beeing completely great.
Only two of the 8 I checked had a rating (slightly) above 4, most were in the range between 3.5 and 4, one even at 3.3.

And this fits, as I would assume that a book that is not at least a little bit controversial, might be making too much compromises to appeal to everyone and thereby loose the stylistic edges or provocative thoughts that could make it an outstanding thing for you personally.

So, I would rather say for me personally: 3.3-4.5 star range seems to be the range where to expect great books.
Below the quality might decline rapidly, while ranges above might be dominated by well crafted, but bland stuff.

I'm a little confused, are you asking if, after reading a book, many of them are less than 4 stars on my own scale? Or are you asking if I use someone else's rating to pick the books I read, and avoid ones less than 4 stars?

I mostly read SF, with some fantasy, and not much else. The core of my reading list is made up from books that have been finalists for the major SF/F awards (Hugo, Nebula, Arthur C Clark), sequels to those, and books recommended by other sources that I respect a lot (e.g., Locus Mag reviews, recommendations by authors who I really like, etc.).

So those probably translate into 4 or 5 star ratings from external sources, though none of them use a rating system like that. I very, very rarely end up hating the books I end up reading, though some I don't really like a lot, even though they were critically acclaimed.

You can see the books I've read in 2025, with links to prior years, in this post.

Five star = a lot of mediocre people liked it

Four star = mediocre people liked it, but for some of the mediocre people it was too complex or too sophisticated

Three stars = this isn’t intended for mediocre people, only sophisticated and/or educated people will understand the value

Two stars = this is low quality. On the other hand, you (as a true Connoisseur with exceptional taste) may have stumbled over a golden nugget.

One star = this is probably total crap. Yet, it might be five star for some exclusive, true Connoisseurs