Show HN: I built a modern Goodreads alternative

Custom shelves (Organize however you want) Rich-text reviews (format your thoughts properly) 10-star rating system (More nuance than 5 stars) DNF, On-Hold, and other reading statuses Likes, shares, comments on reviews Import your library from Goodreads/StoryGraph A beautiful design that doesn’t make you feel like you’re using an ancient website Coming next: Deep tagging system (Genres, moods, character traits, tropes) Beautiful stats & insights (Visualize your reading habits) Discussion forums for every book (Think subreddit-style discussions)

> 10-star rating system (More nuance than 5 stars)

Does one really get anything meaningful out of saying this was a 6-star book vs a 7-star book?

Personally I think 4 levels is sufficient. Either it's rather bad, not bad but not good, good but not great or it's great.

Anything beyond that will have to be written in words.

kmfrk · a year ago

Goodfilms (goodfil.ms), rest in peace, had a great two-rating system with Quality and Rewatchability, because the latter turned out to be a really useful metric.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3082241

One of the main frustrations I have with Goodreads is how limited the API is nowadays, and how there appear to be no measures against brigading and other campaigns. One of the core issues with ratings services.

Personally I'm hoping Open Library by the Internet Archive grows more in popularity, given how most websites come and go:

https://openlibrary.org

SamBam · a year ago

How does one use an average Rewatchability score to determine whether one should watch a movie?

If I'm trying to pick a movie, I don't care what its score for rewatching is, I care about what its score is for watching it the first time.

And once I've watched a movie, I don't care about whether other people say I should watch it again, I care about whether I want to watch it again.

A movie is different from buying a board game. If I'm shelling out $50 for a game, I'll want to know if it's still fun the twentieth time I play. But that isn't a consideration when picking a new movie to watch, the experience may be worth it even if I never watch it again. And ditto with books. I'm probably not going to read that 800-page book again, but that shouldn't stop me reading it once.

vasanthk1125 · a year ago

I'm curious—what would you like to do with the API?

nerdponx · a year ago

No, and that's why Netflix switched to thumbs up/down instead of 5 stars.

jfengel · a year ago

And they mostly ignore that. They have access to what you actually watch, rather than what you say you like. They know what you start, what you finish, and how quickly you jump on a new one.

It doesn't matter how many times you down vote Mexican soap operas or singing talent shows. If you keep watching they're gonna keep suggesting them.

skeeter2020 · a year ago

It's debatable this was the motivation for Netflix. More stars ==> more nuanced ==> more qualitative reviews ==> much more effort and time to decide if you should consume. Netflix is long(er) form TicTok and wants to optimize for continued consumption without friction. I wouldn't be surprised if they drop ratings all together and only offer a personalized AI curator stream. They could do this just based on viewing time and engagement and avoid even the minor disruption of "up/down". Don't make the sheep think.

lostmsu · a year ago

Last time I saw a movie there there was "super thumbs up" in addition to normal one.

For clarity I'd replace rating systems with "was it a good spend of my time?" yes/no question. Then just show percentages. Could not be clearer.

vasanthk1125 · a year ago

They switched because it took more effort from users to rate on a 5 vs just saying good or bad. Because Netflix is a streaming service, casual users don't want to put in that much effort when they're chilling. Tracking is fundamentally different, where you go in with the expectation of organizing your library.

latexr · a year ago

Agreed in general that 10 and even 5 is too much, and that 4 is a good compromise. Though personally I prefer thumbs up and thumbs down, plus a separate starring option. The first two signify “would I recommend this to anyone else” while the latter means “this has something interesting I’d like to revisit at a later date”. Something losing its star rating is par for the course, but the recommendation status is less likely to change (though it can happen). And yes, it is possible to give something a thumbs down and favourite it, e.g. when you don’t think something is particularly good or competent but it still had something which you recognise as meaningful to yourself specifically.

I don’t think this system is right for everyone, but I like it. Depending on the platform I may even use a rating system of 1, which represents the starring and everything else is just read/watched.

stevage · a year ago

I informally often use a -1 to 2 scale. Bad, fine, good, great.

The difference between 1 and 2 on a 5 point scale is not useful.

vasanthk1125 · a year ago

It just feels satisfying to me—organizing my library neatly by rating, based on how much I like each book. A four-level system just doesn’t have the same impact. Personal preference, I guess.

oneeyedpigeon · a year ago

Just ranking everything in order is the ideal rating system. And it's easy to convert to whatever poorly-chosen system someone else wants you to use. It does mean the scores for your first few ratings will fluctuate quite a bit, though!

ijustlovemath · a year ago

If you added half stars and stuck to a 5-star system, there's less user surprise for functionally the same thing.

7bit · a year ago

I would guess that with experience and age preferences change. What's the point of a 10 star rating system if you have a 10 star rated book that you wouldn't rate the same after being ten years older?

qznc · a year ago

Rating books on an absolute scale makes little sense to me.

The actual questions is: Whom can you recommend this book? Even mediocre books can be very useful for the right people.

kqr · a year ago

I think one of the most robust rating systems I've worked with is based on comparisons, i.e. "did you like this more or less than X". This is more computationally intensive, but it can be made to work even with intransitive and unreliable judgments.

bmacho · a year ago

Rating is a mess. Still I think people are used to express their opinions on a 0-10 scale, and they will appreciate if they can just keep doing that.

dexterdog · a year ago

0 to 10 is a mess as well because some people give 10s very often and others only give a 10 for the very best things. And of course the bots all rate everything 1 or 10.

gniv · a year ago

Having worked on a rating system, I think 10 levels are useful (or 5 levels with half-stars). You can create better averages/recs using 10 levels, since ratings of 0 or 10, which are often spammy, can be down-weighed.

jay_kyburz · a year ago

I once had an interesting conversation with my mother in law who was telling us about how much thought and effort she puts into scoring shows on IMDB. She was shocked to learn that I want my opinion to have more impact, so If I like a show I give 10 and if I didn't it gets 1.

magicalhippo · a year ago

I can absolutely understand that it makes sense to have a much more fine-grained average, but personally I struggle to give meaningful ratings beyond the four I mentioned.

That said perhaps multiple binary dimensions would be better. Good story yes/no, interesting/unique premise yes/no, overall good acting yes/no, good cinematography yes/no etc etc.

BeetleB · a year ago

> Does one really get anything meaningful out of saying this was a 6-star book vs a 7-star book?

I rate for myself, and not others. And for over 20 years I've used a 10 point system.

10 = Easily amongst my favorite

9 = Awesome, but not in all time favorites

8 = Really liked it, and would recommend

7 = Liked it, was worth my time, but not so much that I would happily recommend to others

6 = Liked it, but wasn't worth my time

5 = Neutral

And below 5 I don't distinguish. I randomly pick to indicate I didn't like it.

fcarraldo · a year ago

It kind of seems like you use a five-point system, then?

longdustytrail · a year ago

I agree with a lot of your top 5 so I’ll try to continue

5: I enjoyed sections of this book but as a whole I didn’t like it

4: had some cool ideas and there were moments when I got excited but the execution wasn’t there. Basically an amateur with a good idea

3: readable but unsatisfying. I finished it but was roasting it in my head the whole time

2: garbage. Bad story idea and bad writing. Nothing good to say except that it seemed like the author was trying

1: offensive. Celebrity cash grabs, polemics, etc. no artistic value whatsoever, author was not trying to write a good book. “Book” is just a format here

dimava · a year ago

The thing is, 10 means "I'm a fan" It doesn't tell anything about if I've liked it or even if I've watched it

cAtte_ · a year ago

you use a 7 point system

mvkel · a year ago

The 4-star system is indeed wonderful. A rating that is truly "neutral" doesn't exist in a world of human subjectivity

croisillon · a year ago

for me there are 3 levels:

- books i wish i hadn't lost time with

- books i've read and were probably ok

- books i would give/recommend

stock_toaster · a year ago

I typically like 7 point scales (like this[1] post from jgc outlines), but your classification also seems pretty good.

[1]: https://blog.jgc.org/2007/12/seven-point-scale.html

stared · a year ago

To me, even 5-star system is broken by design, with a pressure to rate everything 4 and 5, especially if these are known to be classic books.

I rarely give 1 or 2 - in vast majority of cases it means I stop reading them, out of respect for my time.

What is nice, but underused (since most platforms want us to be excited, because of sales and adverts) is some kind of slider with mean at 0, for expected quality.

Even better, tags to choose from "awesome", "insightful", "well-researched", "funny", "cringe", "inaccurate" etc. I mean, there are tags, but I mean ones explicitly displayed next to rating.

7bit · a year ago

Black Panther has a rating of 96% at Rotten Tomatoes. So whatever the scale is, nothing is really meaningful. I've been in the cinema with about 60 other people and a friend. statistically one of us should have enjoyed it but we both found the movie shit. So no, 10 stars is not more meaningful as 5 stars. 2-4 should be enough to still be wrong about taste once in a while.

gamblor956 · a year ago

96% means that 96% of critics liked the movie enough to recommend it.

It also means that 4% of critics did not recommend the movie. In a theater of 60 people, you and your friend would fit into that 4%. So there's nothing wrong with RottenTomatoes.

SergeAx · a year ago

I can definitely say there is a difference between 7-star and 6-star movies on IMDb. A 7-star movie on IMDb is worth watching most of the time, while a 6-star movie is a 50/50 chance. A 5-star and less movie is a hard pass.

hansvm · a year ago

I could see "proportion of 10s" vs "proportion of 5s" (the max score in either case) being meaningful.

slightwinder · a year ago

I think for a personal level, everything with more than 3 rating-states is overrated. Either you like it, dislike it, or don't care. Nothing more necessary. But on a social site, more nuance can be valuable to get a more fine-tuned result without polishing algorithms.

phaedrus441 · a year ago

I completely agree. I've never read a 1-star (to me) book because that implies it's unreadable, and anything good enough to keep my attention room is generally 4-stars and rarely 5-stars. I bet if I look at my Goodreads it's 60% 4s, 30% 3s, and 10% 5s

jay_kyburz · a year ago

I don't rate books on Goodreads, but I do look at the average rating when deciding to read a book. I won't start anything less than about 3.7 or 3.8.

kaushikt · a year ago

YouTube changed to thumbs up/down from 5-star rating system many years ago like Netflix. They learnt most people either give it 1 star or 5 stars. It’s also hard to understand the meaning of 2,3, and 4 stars in the context of a video.

teeray · a year ago

My stars are as follows:

5 - This book was so good that it’s life-changing

4 - This is a really good book

3 - I enjoyed this book, it was good.

2 - It’s alright.

1 - I hated this book with every fiber of my being, because it somehow tricked me into finishing it despite my hatred of it.

darthrupert · a year ago

Should be Positive / Neutral / Negative and anything beyond that described in text.

Reasoning: number ratings are subjective. My 4/5 is not the same as yours... or even the same as mine 2 years ago.

lgl · a year ago

Sure, but can we really deny that the 5 star rating is pretty decent and simple, having an exact middle point and then two levels for each side.

magicalhippo · a year ago

Well yeah, but I feel the neutral midpoint is problematic because I feel it's too easy to pick it. Removing the midpoint forces one to decide which side it leans towards.

If one really feels the need for the "meh" category, I'd say go for a 3-level system: bad, meh, great.

eviks · a year ago

No, that's meaningless precision. meaningful precision would be stars by category, not a generic overall assessment

magicalhippo · a year ago

I don't feel it's entirely meaningless, but I do agree multidimensional rating would be more informative and better to guide others.

barotalomey · a year ago

If there's no voting data, it doesn't matter what scale is used.

bwb · a year ago

Ya i do love, like, meh, dislike :). I want personal ratings not a weird public scale that everyone uses differently.

I don't mind a goodreads alternative, but regarding the UI from 2005, I am not sure I care. It works and people are used to it. I am not a supporter of "let's try build a new interface using shiny new technology" for the sake of new.

Freak_NL · a year ago

A dated UI is fine by me, but at no point did the current placement of the search field make any sense for the average user. It is de-emphasised, hidden almost below the fold, as if searching for reviews of a particular title wasn't the thing most visitors come there for.

Of course there are plenty of monetisation and engagement reasons for that UI item to be awkwardly placed…

Kaguya seems a little better here, but it too starts with a huge 'MAKE AN ACCOUNT OR FUCK OFF' message in mid screen, with the search field in the navigation bar on top. If you want become the Goodreads alternative, start with realising that a lot of people just want to see if the reviews are any good before committing to creating an account and contributing in turn.

lkbm · a year ago

I don't mind where the search is. I do mind that the drop-down results can't be opened in new tabs—they are links, so you can choose "open in new tab", but they're links to "#", so you end up opening the current page in a new tab.

It's just a bunch of basic usability problems like that that they've never bothered addressing.

jay_kyburz · a year ago

The search bar is only weird on the home page, which I don't imagine is visited very much. I bet most people jump to a books page from a browser or phone search.

jordanb · a year ago

Arguably 2005 was a high water mark for UIs. That was when people were still focused on "human interface design" and hadn't adopted the A/B "revealed preference" nonsense.

actinium226 · a year ago

I find the Goodreads UI clunky. To note down my start/end dates for a book I have to have some activity on it, and then I can edit those dates.

There are other corners of it that could be nicer. It's not so much about modern tooling as much as it is about using modern tooling to achieve better flow and more pleasant presentation.

mtndew4brkfst · a year ago

I care most about perf/responsiveness as I navigate the site. GR was tolerable on this metric while I still used it, StoryGraph (for understandable reasons) is abysmally slow somehow.

I have the same complaint about BoardGameGeek. If it was super snappy to go with the dated design, I wouldn't bat an eye, but it is also kind of a slog.

Both are things I use for discovery a little bit more than I use to record my thoughts about my previous experiences, so my browsing behavior is very breadth-first search and that makes the slow loads more of an acute problem for me.

vasanthk1125 · a year ago

That's totally okay. If it works for you, keep using it by all means. The point of an alternative is to serve those who do have a problem and are frustrated with the status quo.

frankfrank13 · a year ago

Agreed I really don't mind the interface, if anything, I hate the new stuff they've aded

Xelbair · a year ago

for me it is the opposite - i actually prefer older UI.

Less optimized for farming my attention and ads, more optimized for me discovering things, and not being shoehorned into choices.

ch4s3 · a year ago

I view it as a positive. It's easy to find things and obvious which parts are interactive.

Backend: Elixir & Phoenix Database: PostgreSQL with Supabase (originally CockroachDB, big mistake) Auth: Supabase Frontend: Next.js UI Components: shadcn GraphQL API: Absinthe Hosting: Fly.io (Phoenix) + Vercel (Next.js) Storage: Cloudflare R2 + CDN