The population of its website seems to be:
80% people who read nothing but twilight and other chick lit
5% people who read nothing but gaddis, vollman, and the like
and only 15% rationally minded people.

they aren't all rated 4 stars.

here's how goodreads works

4 or above = read that shit
3.9 = read that shit you will probably like it
3.8 = hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm try it out, shirts getting experimental, you might not like it
3.7 = read at your own risk
3.6 = utter trash avoid at all cost
3.5 and under = kill yourself

>>8149294
>Vollman began cross dressing in 2008 and has developed a female alter ego personal named Dolores

it's really trendy in the usa, isn't it

>>8149302
>4 or above = read that shit

the fault in our stars rated 4.3, looking for alaska - 4.1 :3

>>8149321
yeah fucking read it. that many people can't be wrong..come back after you read them and I'll listen to what you have to say. until then back away from the keyboard.

people aren't as discerning as the nearest rating site I'd liken it to, rym. discogs users tend to rate higher as well which I suppose can be attributed to owning a physical copy lends itself to already liking the work