A review with five stars

Source A: an original imagined contribution by a reader of arts reviews.

I find a star rating useful as a first indication. On a crowded page, it tells me where a reviewer’s judgement broadly lies before I decide whether to read the explanation. That is not the same as believing five stars can tell me what a play feels like.

The words remain necessary. A warmly praised performance may contain exactly the feature I would find difficult, while a qualified review can describe something I am curious to experience. Sometimes I choose a work because I disagree with the reason for a lower rating.

Keep the stars beside the argument, rather than sending them out to do its work alone. They can help me begin reading, provided the page makes it easy to reach the distinctions which the number cannot hold.

Source B: an original imagined statement by a reviewer who prefers not to use star ratings.

I would rather my review begin with a description or a judgement expressed in words. A number attracts attention so quickly that a qualified account can arrive as an explanation of a verdict the reader believes is already complete.

Two four-star reviews may value quite different things. Even the same reviewer might admire one work for difficulty and another for ease. A shared mark gives those responses an appearance of measurement which the writing then has to complicate.

I know that a reader may need a quick guide. A short summary could provide one without pretending to put every kind of achievement on a single line. The problem is not that numbers are always useless; it is that an attractive shorthand can become the part most easily detached from the reasons which made it meaningful.

Compare the views in Sources A and B about including star ratings in reviews.