I feel like a lot of authors get bummed when they see a rating of around 3/5 stars. It can be 3/5 stars, 3.25/5 stars, 3.5/5 stars, or 3.75/5 stars. But any rating that's around 3 stars gets them upset. This reaction is understandable. The reader didn't feel like it was worth 4+ star, so therefore it's a "bad rating."
I'm here to say explain why a 3 star rating is not a bad rating. So if you have any author friends, feel free to use this argument to explain this to them. You can even send this post their way.
 |
| This photo is just here because we're talking about star ratings and I liked it |
I know that with myself and many other readers, a 3 star rating just means that the book was okay. Yes, the book didn't cut it for the 4-star "good" rating, but that doesn't mean that we didn't like the book. Personally, 3 stars means that I did like it and that it was okay, it just didn't "wow" me.
Out a rating of 5 stars, 3 is in the middle ground. I think that if we're going to find a middle ground on this topic, 3-stars can be described as the "okay" rating, because that's how many of us use it. It's in a nice, cozy place in the middle and it kind of acts as a balance between the "good" ratings (4, 5) and the "bad" ratings (1, 2).
And I want us all to remember something: "good" and "bad" are very subjective adjectives, and they can very easily mean different things for different people.
No comments:
Post a Comment