>>25329012
Why would you go to a crowdsourced rating site expecting otherwise? Goodreads is fine as a logger, maybe as a social network if you find the right people. Look for people with similar taste as you and see how they rate things rather than going by the aggregate.

>>25329012
It's a diary website to log your books. Nothing more and nothing less.

>>25329012
They also took away private messaging wtf

>>25329012
>It's impossible to find anything on this site because the ratings are so inflated.
You can easily understand the ratings.
>3.0-3.50
Intellectual stuff that filtered the normies
>3.50-3.75
Intellectual stuff that didn't reach the normies
>3.75-4.0
The bad non intellectual stuff
>4.0-4.25
The great non intellectual stuff
>4.25+
Indie author or hyped trash

File: file.png (964.7 KB)

>>25329051
rateyourmusic is fine though. Like it's not perfect but it's better than fucking goodreads lmao.
>>25329244
uhhhhhhh..............based goodreads?

>>25329259
rateyourmusic has been completely overrun by disgusting trannies and retards. As soon as nigger music became the top rated album it was beyond saving.

File: 1780450173574513.jpg (37.7 KB)

Its no different than lettrbox. Its a logger at best, review site at worst.
If you want to talk about books you have to engage with others in a personal level, don't expect to find insightful understanding and conversations there.

>>25329268
I cringe when I see someone who gave TPAB a 5 while never reviewing another rap album but the site is still better than goodreads. I would much rather Beloved be the top novel on the site than fucking Harry Potter.

I give 4s to most books, 5s to ones I enjoyed a lot, and 3s to ones I didn’t. You have to really be trash to get a 1 or 2 from me

>>25329305
Fair enough. It is a better website overall since you can still use it to find some cool stuff you wouldn't know about otherwise but the entire community aspect of the site is complete dogshit. I'd sooner kill myself than have a conversation about music with the average rym user.

>>25329307
5 --> loved it
4 --> really enjoyed it
3 --> didn't particularly enjoy the experience, but it may had some value
2 --> didn't enjoy it, it's not for me
1 --> plain bad

>>25329012
what are the best methods for finding books? goodreads lists are not horrible but not great. esp non fic

user ratings on all sites are totally unreliable because autists are going to pump up their hyper-fixation comfort genres and people with taste arent even going to waste their time on garbage they know will be garbage

ill google an old now unpopular book and throw goodreads in the search and sometimes there will be a couple of reviews up for it that's how i use the site

Half the goodreads reviews I see are in the vein of
>yikes! this book is totally misogynistic! on page 354. the protagonist calls a woman a harlot, that's like so totally slut shaming and perpetuates heteronormative patriarchal standards, not okay! 1/5 stars.
It's always women too. They seem to not be able to comprehend that just because a character in a book says something within the context of the narrative, that it does not mean that the author actually condones or espouses that point of view himself. Even worse when the book is non-fiction and the author is just relating facts.
>trigger warning: this book is ableist and sexist!
Yeah no shit bitch, it's an academic account of 17th century China, do you except the author to just lie and say they were all hardcore feminists?

>>25329494
for me its
5 -> will read again
4 -> loved it
3 -> enjoyed it
2 -> bad or I just didn’t understand it
1 -> terrible, likely didn’t finish

>why is a website infected with attention-whoring narcissists so bad?