Back a while I read a Goodread’s review for a Thai cookbook. At the time, though I found it weird, I told myself a cookbook was still a book, so the rules for rating still counted.
The other day, again on Goodreads, I saw a 3 star rating for another cookbook, and the weirdness of it came back.
How do you rate a cookbook? What do you take in consideration?
I recalled all the cookbooks my mom had and remember reading them when young. What’s there to rate?
Is it based on how great the recipes are? Is it based on how the recipes are explained? Or the yummy pictures? Do you have to cook all the recipes in that book before you rate it? If you think not, then why not? You’re reviewing and rating that book based on its quality, right? How can you tell the quality without trying all the recipes? Maybe the ones you didn’t try – for lack of ingredients, or because you didn’t feel like trying that one, or because it took time – were exactly the kind of food you like to eat. Wouldn’t that then, be unfair to the author who wrote it? Wouldn’t it be like rating a book without reading it?
What if you find only one or two handful of recipes you enjoy, but they’re great recipes that you now cook for every special occasion?
Would you rate the cookbook you have, or do you think it’s weird too? I’m seriously curious, guys, how do you rate a cookbook?