Quillbert had recently joined the website Goodreads. It was a big, book database, where readers could share what they were reading and post reviews. Quillbert liked that he could keep his books nice and orderly, as he lived with a most disorganised human being.
His favourite feature on Goodreads was star ratings. Each book could be rated between one and five stars. Sometimes Quillbert rated a book and it stayed that way. Sometimes he changed his mind. Or even twice. It did not matter one bit.
The best part about the star ratings on Goodreads was that there were guidelines:
One Star – Did not like it.
Two Stars – It was okay.
Three Stars – Liked it.
Four Stars – Really liked it.
Five Stars – It was amazing!
Quillbert's least liked aspect of the star rating system was the hissies people had about them. They believed One Star = Bad Book. But the guidelines meant that the rating system was subjective. If you did not like a book, you could rate it one star, and doom on anyone who tried to shame you.
Yet the outcries persisted. Could there ever be an accord when such a system was so unobjective? Must all views be critical, or was the nature of such a platform for people to share their raw, personal opinions? He just did not know.
What are your thoughts on the Goodreads star rating system?