A quick note about Goodreads Ratings

Every book… scratch that.. Most books have their flaws.

Sometimes the flaws are little bit more obvious, and sometimes the books’ flaws hide deep beneath the surface. I’ve been well aware of this for some time, but it most recently occurred to me while reading “The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher” — a book that dives into a murder in the 1850s as well as lays out how the modern detective was born — along with it’s coinciding literature.

If you do any fair amount of reading/goodreads-ing you’ll often come across a rating that can make you pause with a sigh. You may ask yourself: “Is this book going to be worth it if it’s only 3.5 stars?”

One common theme (pausing on the word consensus) among readers is that Goodreads ratings are “shit.” And for good reason. People can be quick to point out and exaggerate flaws, get way too political, or go the opposite way and get afraid to rate a book poorly because it was a Pulitzer prize winner.

Books are also wildly different in the ways that you can rate them. For example, Fantasy books like Lord of The Rings come equipped with maps, languages, and lore. There are times where as a reader, you’d maybe want to rate the different aspects of a book and have that generate an entire rating on it’s own.

There’s a much different rating system that goes into reviewing a massive book such as “The Silmarillion” VS “Podcasting for Business.” Each might deliver exactly what it is that you…