Five-star-ratings everywhere
-
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.
Yeah which is why I pretty much ignore stars unless someone has a rubric in their profile, or an actual review attached.
Solely numeric reviews are basically no better than up and down votes. Good for automation or algorithms, but largely useless to humans.
-
Who asked them?
they're the ones who decided that anything less than a perfect score is an "opportunity for improvement" in other words "do better or you're fired".
-
The times I've done it were for:
- One guy who had his phone in his steering wheel and was playing some sort of online gambling the whole drive and didn't look directly at the road once
- One guy who was driving around on a spare tire (doughnut) on the highway at speeds way above those it said on the tire.
I mean I can look the other way on just about anything (I've given 5* to a lot of questionable driving decisions and shitty cars) but when you are putting my life at risk, that's where I draw the line.
Yep perfectly justified but you can't actually couch gambling guy you really just need to fire him because he'll continue to be a moron.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
It’s the kind of thing that honestly should be regulated.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
Perfection is a goal,
Not a default
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
What if the company pays a bot farm to give 5 star ratings to everything?
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
I just don't provide ratings. You shouldn't either. Reviewing is a job. Some people are professional reviewers. Don't do free labor for corporations. Do not rate products or services.
-
I just don't provide ratings. You shouldn't either. Reviewing is a job. Some people are professional reviewers. Don't do free labor for corporations. Do not rate products or services.
Involving money in reviews undermines the whole foundation of honest unbiased feedback.
-
...and very good at a 9 and exceptional at a 10.
Sounds like a good scale to me. You need headroom for a really good experience.
It also allows a lot of room for bad experiences, which is important.
"They tried their best but failed" could be a 5. "This is a scam and I am lucky I wasn't caught" could be a 1. "It was bad, plus they had a bad attitude" could be a 3.
-
The race may already be lost, but still.
Big corp has 10 ratings, and anything under 9 is deemed failure.
-
Involving money in reviews undermines the whole foundation of honest unbiased feedback.
asking for reviews does that too. The company can choose who they ask. Reviewers being paid for their work is fine.
-
I think old and current newgrounds rating give a pretty clear representation of what each star mean.
It's old tho.
I seem to remember at one point, a 0 rating said "DIE IN A FIRE"
Maybe that was the scale for music?
-
Involving money in reviews undermines the whole foundation of honest unbiased feedback.
The internet used to be a better place
