It's Official ~ Goodreads is Doing It

Apparently, Goodreads users have been asking for years for the ability to rate a book with half and even quarter stars, and Goodreads has finally caved. Why has it taken this long?

"Goodreads resisted half- and quarter-star ratings for over a decade primarily because of corporate neglect of the platform's aging code and a stated philosophy that whole-star systems kept things simple." 

Call me crazy, but I'm convinced it was the former, not the latter. Goodreads' platform is woefully outdated; seriously awful. Amazon ostensibly found its purchase of the site worthwhile, but it then commenced ignoring it completely. 

"After Amazon acquired Goodreads in 2013, the platform received very little product development or modern feature updates for over ten years, leaving it feeling like a relic of the old internet." 

I saw better websites back in the days when I was using AltaVista. 

As for Goodreads' purported "simple" ratings philosophy, that's nonsensical. Isn't a half star, or even a quarter, more accurate? Most books aren't fives, but maybe some are four and a half. 

Now that the site has joined the 21st century, readers will even have the ability to edit their previous rankings, although who's going to bother doing that? Unless they're some kind of author stalker, which I'm not ruling out. (I have one reviewer who obviously hates me, and she doesn't even know me. I'm a nice person!)  

Because I'm often an outlier among indie authors, I was curious about others' opinions of this change. I wasn't surprised: 

Fear of Review Inflation and Dropping Averages

Conversely, a significant segment of the author community is reporting a noticeable drop in their overall average ratings immediately following the rollout. 

• The "5-Star Standard" Shift: For years, supportive readers treated 5 stars as the default for a book they simply enjoyed, knowing that a 4-star rating could hurt an indie author's standing in Amazon and Goodreads algorithms.
• The New Harsh Reality: With quarter-star increments available, readers are suddenly treating the system with hyper-precision. A book that a reader would have previously bumped up to a 5 out of generosity is now frequently receiving a 4.5 or 4.75, dragging down the strict numerical averages authors rely on for promotional features and algorithm placement.

Deep Concerns Over Precision Review-Bombing

The most severe criticism from authors involves platform safety. Many writers feel that giving readers finer increments gives bad actors more precise ammunition for coordinated review-bombing campaigns. Authors who write diverse characters, LGBTQ+ storylines, or who become targets of internet drama... (yea, blah blah blah--always the victim) ...are highly vulnerable to trolls who can now weaponize malicious "0.25-star" ratings to aggressively suppress a book's average, forcing authors to call for stronger verification and anti-trolling protections alongside the design update. 

Guess what, fellow authors--trolls are trolls, regardless of storyline or characters. Man (or woman) up! But authors are notorious over-thinkers.

So, true to my nature, I'm in favor of the change. I fall more in line with this:

Relief Over Corrected "Rounding Down"

Many independent and mid-list authors are celebrating the update because it solves a long-standing issue with review rounding. Previously, a reader who felt a book was a "4.5 out of 5" would frequently round down to a 4-star rating in the official metric while noting the true score in the text. Authors appreciate that these hidden high-praise reviews can now be officially recorded, providing a truer metric of reader satisfaction and helping to boost their overall platform visibility.

I am one who believes in accuracy, and when I review a book (the couple of times I've actually done it) I would be more likely to go with half stars. (Quarter stars are kind of pushing things too far.) In fact, I wish Amazon would institute that. My thought process is, "It's really good, but not perfect", or "It's pretty good; a bit above a C grade". Conversely, if I really hated a book, I'd give it one star, not one and a quarter.

With regard to my books, maybe my novel's two three-star ratings on Goodreads would have been 3 1/2 stars. Or maybe not. They could have just as easily been two-and-a-half. But Goodreads reviewers are not known for their generosity, so if their opinion was truly 2 1/2, that's what they'd go with.

For me, it's a moot point. I don't anticipate receiving any more reviews, and as you know, I've got nothing new in the pipeline.

I'll be curious to watch the rollout, though. I believe reviewers will readily adapt to the change and will, in fact, applaud it.

Now if Goodreads would just do something about its "librarians".