When I post reviews it fairly typical to be asked to allocate a score based on a 5-star range. Sometimes this confuses me – what is the difference between a 4-star book and a 5-star one? How bad would something have to be to register only 1 star?
So, I’ve given this some extensive thought and analysis – well, I scribbled on a bit of paper for 3.27 minutes – and came up with the following scoring method:
5 stars: Absolutely brilliant. I will be an evangelist for this book/movie/music/restaurant (you get the idea!). I think that everyone should have a copy of this book in their library. I will probably bore you about this if we get in to any remotely related topic.
4 stars: Very good. I will willingly recommend this to people that I think will be interested in it. I’m glad that I procured it.
3 stars: Pretty useful. Not setting the heather on fire, but OK. I won’t go out of my way to recommend it, but I’ll talk about it if you ask me.
2 stars: Mmmm… not for me. I didn’t enjoy it, it didn’t click with me, I don’t get it. I’ll try to tell you why, but it might consume too much of my energy.
1 star: Complete rubbish. I will try to convince you not to waste your time or money on this. It has no redeeming features – apart from spelling the author’s name correctly, and that was probably a stroke of luck.
Does anyone have a more coherent (or balanced) approach? How would you refine/ completely re-write my definitions?