[ SECRET POST #6600 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6600 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #943.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. https://i.imgur.com/86TgQ2U.jpeg

[(Anonymous)]

If something on a mass-review site has 3 or less stars, I assume it must be pretty bad because the organic terrible ratings managed to outweigh the 4-5s farmed by marketing campaigns and bots.

I know review bombing campaigns happen, so if I was particularly interested in something that's badly reviewed I'd still click through to see what the bad reviews are actually saying e.g. obvious review bombs by homophobes crying about gay characters existing mean I ignore the rating and read it anyway. But it usually isn't that.

[(Anonymous)]

I have approximately the same ratings scheme and I also rate most book 3 stars for being average. But I'll read anything that sounds interesting. My tastes don't align with Goodreaders'. Of the 70 books I rated 5 stars, 45 have a GR average of 3.99 or below, the lowest being 3.31.

SA

[(Anonymous)]

So at least from my perspective you're not being a hypocrite, you're just potentially missing out on good books if you set an arbitrary cutoff line.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see how that makes you hypocritical at all. I've consumed a lot of media that I would give 3 stars or less, but it's stuff that I picked up to read/watch/play on my own because I was curious about it for whatever reason. If I'm taking someone else's recs for stuff to consume, then I want it to be good.

[(Anonymous)]

You'd only be a hypocrite if you're giving books that you'd recommend to others 3 stars or less.

[(Anonymous)]

This is pretty much how rating systems are supposed to work. Assuming that most people are using roughly the same metrics, when you go looking for something new to consume, you want something good. Why would you go for adequate when good or great are available? You probably broaden your search if nothing above 4-star appeals, which is a logical way to approach it. It is all pretty subjective, but absent other information, not bad way to narrow your options.

[starfleetbrat]

I don't think its hypocritical to be choosey about what you read, but otherwise yeah thats pretty much my experience too. I ended up installing a browser extension that blocks the ratings on GR so I wouldn't be unduly influenced by them. Now I read just based on the summary (and sometimes the reviews depending on the book).

extension:
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/hide-ratings-imdbgoodread/cnjhjnjbpedipoamajojlbfakbadgiam

[(Anonymous)]

Kinda same because I know from reading reviews that to most people, giving three "hovertext 'I liked it'" stars means "this book was utter garbage," even though from me three stars means just that; I liked it.