I've realized many people don't like to give books a rating of three. I don't get what's wrong with a three. (especially when it accompanies a written review) To me it can mean at least one of the following, a solid read, very likable, good with potential. Using any of those definitions I would definitely read the author again.
But four has become the new three. I don't get the point of rating books if everything is going to be a four or five, with an occasional three. Some people give fives away. Everything can't be a five, if that's the case the expectation bar must be raised.
I read a lot of the popular or buzzed about YA fiction which more times than not features an all Whitecast. If really like or love such a title will I mention or review it. If I didn't, I won't talk about it. There's a good chance the book gave me a bad case of readers potty mouth and I skimmed my way through it. So an evenhanded critique would be impossible.
Plus I simpy don't feel I need to give space to books with all whitecast that I thought were blah. There are enough blogs that focus on these titles. After I finish a blah read, I like to see what other people thought. When I see a lot of five ratings, all I can think is that is not a five. I do rate the blah reads on my goodreads page. A one or two rating says it all. No review required.