Five-star-ratings everywhere
-
I disagree. To me, "ok" means adequate and unremarkable.
Yeah, that makes sense actually. Looking at it again, that's not really the problem. "Bad" is the direct opposite of "Good", they should be at symmetrical spots of the spectrum. Both versions have it wrong. If Bad is the worst rating, Good should be the best. I still say get rid of "some issues," it just sounds too benign to me for the second-worst possible rating, change it to "bad" and make 1/5 stars Terrible or something equally inversely comparable with "Exceptional".
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
I think old and current newgrounds rating give a pretty clear representation of what each star mean.
It's old tho.
-
I think old and current newgrounds rating give a pretty clear representation of what each star mean.
It's old tho.
I feel old now.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
wrote last edited by [email protected]This is working as intended, though. In most cases, nobody cares how stoked you are about the product, people mostly care which flaws the product has. With a target average of, say, 4.5, the 5-star system gives you options to give +0.5 stars all the way down to -3.5, giving negative reviews significantly more weight.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
I rate your scheme 3 stars...
-
That would be terrible to miss that one piece after doing all that work.
But how could you ever prove it wasn't you who lost it?
Right, exactly my point.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
The lower scheme is how I rate media, for service it's unfortunately the upper one because I don't want to fuck anybody over who's just doing their job.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
For hr or Uber or similar the scale is this:
5 stars = meh, expected experience
4 stars or lower = your employee literally tried to kill me
-
I disagree. To me, "ok" means adequate and unremarkable.
Be careful with it, though, because if someone on minimum wage is somehow linked with your less than perfect rating, corporate are going to be on their case to improve their numbers.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
Capitalism tries to get as much out of their employees as possible. Meaning employees fear of losing your job of you don't get the highest rating. And if you are in the USA that means losing benefits and quickly running out of money. Give employees the highest rating, unless it actually bad, because they are forced to live in capitalism.
-
Ah, but consider
5 = Exceptional
4 = Met expectations
1 = Bad
4 does not meet corporate expectations and some minimum wage person who dealt with you is going to get shouted at.
-
4 does not meet corporate expectations and some minimum wage person who dealt with you is going to get shouted at.
Actually to be clear normally it's the average weight of reviews that is relevant nobody has time to actually speak to every review and most people don't actually shout at people
-
If I get asked to rate something it's probably going to be a 4 or a 3 unless it's bad, 5 means as good as it can be and unless a 6 gets added then it's unrealistic to give a 5
This is actually dumber. Rating is about how well the person felt about spending the money whereas everyone really wants to know how good of a whatever it is
So you really want to know it's an 85 out of a hundred on an absolute scale but all you know is how people felt about spending a certain amount of money which may not even be the amount of money the merchant is changing.
So 4 might mean people felt pretty good about spending $10 but you are being asked by Joe Bob merchant to pay 20
-
I prefer
- bad
- issues
- good
- great
- exceptional
Except it isn't even an objective scale other folks are rating something a 5 for not being complete POS and being 5 dollars treating it as an objective scale and using a different one from planet Earth is less than useful.
-
Every time I have to do an after call/chat survey I try to add a comment along the lines of "Your representative was very helpful, but I had to deal with too much waiting and too many chatbots to reach them. Please hire more staff."
Nobody who reads those cares and has the ability to effect that
-
Yeah this is why I almost always give 5* reviews to any sort of thing that's traced back to a worker unless I really feel like they need to be reprimanded for something, and how badly they should be reprimanded is how many stars I take off. This is only for the 1% who really need a talking to.
When it comes to product reviews on Amazon for example, or business reviews, I feel a lot more free to give my real opinion to help the next person.
Everyone I've ever dealt with who thought the employee needed reprimanded was either
-
A huge asshole
-
completely wrong
-
didn't like a policy that the employee had no say in
-
was dealing with a reversible error that required training not reprimand
-
-
Actually to be clear normally it's the average weight of reviews that is relevant nobody has time to actually speak to every review and most people don't actually shout at people
If your target is 4.7, every asshole who gives you 4 stars because "there's always room for improvement" or "5 means excellent and I wasn't that excited about it" has to be balanced by at least three more who give it 5 because they recognise that the wage slave has no power to make it better than they did and it's unreasonable to expect the wage slave to inject joy into their day.
most people don’t actually shout at people
Depends on the company. Some companies give people a ten cents raise, an hour's training and lots of stress and targets for being a supervisor. I don't know whether shouting at the other wage slaves is the intended behaviour, but it's frequently the outcome.
It's great that you don't have experience working for places where the fear is used for control, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen a lot.
You may say "if you don't like it, feel free to get a different job", but that's exactly what management say, and there are plenty of people on whom that fear works.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
This is how it works in Japan. An average of 4 stars on Google Map (for food places, at least) is considered pretty good. There's also another Japanese site dedicated for restaurants (Tabelog), where restaurants with more than 3.5 stars only make up 3%. Only 0.07% restaurants have more than 4 stars.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
I also struggle with people liberally handing out "11/10" for "great" and go up to 12 for "awesome".
My scale for "great" is 8, "awesome" is 9 and 10 is reserved for really special things (greay by itself + some additional bonus).
I always feel weird, like I'm overly critical, when someone else says "Oh this is great, I love this, 11/10" and I feel the same but only hand out 8.7/10.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
A few times in my life I encountered a system where 1 is labled "Satisfactory" or something similar and 5 is "Perfect" or similar.
In those cases I either refuse to rate or rate a 1 no matter how it went.
I think the system should always be so that 1 is absolute dog shit, 3 is no complaints, 5 is exceptional
I hate that 5 is anywhere from "just okay" to "amazingly exceptional" and you just can't know which it is
