Average rating of 2.3 stars yet library rating shows 4 stars!!! Many must have rated 5 stars without comments which is highly illogical. Are they from independent or paid Patterson's fans? Hope the librarians will look into this discrepancy. Without a good explanation, the biblio rating marginalized legit members' reviews.

===

Here is the math for that to happen.

Number of commenters who posted ratings = 5; assume X is number of raters who did not comment; and the average rating of 4:

Therefore total number of patrons who commented and those who only rated = (5+X)

and the sum of stars by both commenters and X (raters without comment) = (5+X)4

----

Sum of stars by commenters = 11.5; assume those X raters gave the maximum 5 stars:

Therefore sum of stars by commenters and X (raters without comment) = 11.5 + 5X

---

To solve for X

11.5 + 5X = (5+X)4

X = 8.5

Math says 8.5 people who did not care to leave a comment rated this book the maximum of 5 stars while those who cared to leave a comment and rated gave it a poor 2.3 stars ?????