I've been feeling more strongly about trying to get reading done than I have been getting writing done lately, while also staring in dismay at how long that TBR list is growing. (The more books I read, the more I end up hearing about, and the more I end up wanting to read. Somehow.)
One of the things I've been considering as I look back at my reading for this year is... I think I need to be a bit meaner on my rating scale, haha.
And I think "mean" is the wrong word: but it
feels "mean" when I give anything under a 4 out of 5. As such, I've given way more 4s than any other rating, even when a handful of those were books that I really did end up feeling fairly neutrally toward, which really should be more of a 3. At least a few of the things that I have given 3s to really should be 2s, because in some cases I have
remained salty about how much I didn't like it, haha. Even a few of the 5s should probably more properly be 4s, but because they were better than some of the should-have-been-3s, their ratings got nudged up. Basically, the whole scale is out of whack.
Tumblr user "aromanticduck" shared the following chart to explain how they give ratings:

"Spicy" on the chart indicates that the work inspires some strong feelings, where "bland" indicates that it doesn't leave much of a lasting impression. (I quoted this chart a couple months ago, recalling the spicy vs. bland 3s, but have now actually found the original.)
I really like this chart!
As they explain in their reasoning, this makes 5s and 1s both fairly difficult to achieve, because there's only one way to get there. 3s are easiest to get on the chart, and would theoretically be the most common rating.
Now, I don't think that a 3 necessarily
has to be the average rating that I'm giving. I am curating my reading list, and minus a handful of wildcards, I am trying to read things that I expect to enjoy. It would make sense for 4s to be pretty common, if the things I think will appeal to me actually do so! Even so, I know that in some cases I've been giving 4s because I really liked something, and sometimes the 4s mean that it was just... fine.
(Of course, blah blah, I always reserve the right to add in my subjective feelings. Like... Maeve Fly was a 2.5 for me, because I don't like the subgenre. For someone who likes that subgenre better, it could be an easy 5! I thought the writing and character work was great; I just didn't like it. It was subjectively wrong for
me, which is not objectively saying "there were too many things wrong with this". Vice versa, there are things that could be an objective 3, but I had such a great time, I'm going to give it higher.)
I think I'm going to go back through my reviews from this year and try to reassess some of them, really trying to keep the chart in mind, because I want to be able to look back at things and see a fairly accurate view of what I liked or didn't.
I really do have to get over feeling like giving a 3 is mean, though.
Even when I like the author,
even when there were good points to the book,
even when it's part of a series I enjoy...
(I think I've been poisoned by the way star ratings work for businesses, where basically anything under a perfect 5 gets some employee yelled at, and a 3 can get you shut down...)