I blame management metrics that punish anyone for getting less than 5-star reviews

Don't care how many stars it is; if it's like 4.5 stars out of 1000+ reviews, I'll take it over something that's 5 stars with 100 reviews.

What it is now:

• 5 stars = it was fine
• 5 stars plus glowing review = it was great
• 4 stars = it could have been better
• 1 star = terrible
• 1 star plus review = so terrible that I had to write something OR I'm a gigantic gaping asshole that likes to complain

Every single person that I get requested to rate gets five stars plus a positive comment because fuck you gig economy.

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 mean, this is a good idea, I’ll give it four stars.

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

This doesn’t work unless everybody agrees to use it

I worked for AWS for a few years and one of our performance targets was customer correspondence rating, we had a target of 4.67. That means anything below a 5 brought you under the target. You also got to have a meeting with a team lead and quality lead for anything rated 3 and below.

We do net promoter scores, out of 10. 9 and 10 are positive, 6-8 are neutral, 1-5 are negative. We get scores like "Good job, no complaints, 5 points" or "Best service ever, but my internet went down, so I knocked it down to 8 points."

what about using thumbs up/down and computing a five-star rating from the average?

Good luck convincing HR, or any of the assholes in corporate.

I prefer

• bad
• issues
• good
• great
• exceptional

It always seems like, for most people, the middle three stars might as well not exist. Was it acceptable? Five stars. Do I want to complain? One star. There is no in-between.

For real, the fact that the former is how people have started using the five start system is crazy. Uber driver has less than a 4.8 rating? Cancel that ride, he must be a monster.

Big corp has 10 ratings, and anything under 9 is deemed failure.

I think old and current newgrounds rating give a pretty clear representation of what each star mean.

It's old tho.

No I had emotional bad time and so that means 1 star always 😡

We tried this though. "C" stopped being an average grade and therefore "okay", a long time ago.

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.

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

I have a very similar system only from a subjective personal angle:

1. I hated it
2. I didn't like it
3. It was fine
4. I really liked it
5. I loved it

So most get 3, some get 2 or 4, only the few special ones get 1 or 5.

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.

relevant xkcd

Absolutely right! To somehow make sense of the current system, I tried to do statistics of reviews and see how a product or a business fairs in comparison to equivalent products or nearby businesses. The problem is that now there are so many fake reviews in addition to unhelpful human review.

Remember boys and girls, a 4 out of 5 star review on any platform that doesn't allow a zero star, is only a 75% grade. Not an 80% like these hucksters imply. Thats a solid C, not a B. Let's not give in to this corporate delusion anymore

3-5 = 50% =/= 60%

2-5 =25% =/= 40%

It's a false show of satisfaction in the very least. A rotting manifestation of the soulless corporation not allowing any amount of transparency stop them from pulling the curtain closed tighter, on the, "oh fuck," side.

I think they are actually aware the curtains are silk and quite see through. I think we can all agree we've crossed the event horizon. Everything is going to get pulled in soon.

It’s not the rating that’s flawed. It’s that reviews are bought now. There’s minimal real reviews.

Why are 0 stars not included?

I think there should be 3 options: bad, OK, exceptional.

The only two ratings that matter are 5 and 1.

5 = Met expectations

1 = Bad

Give 5 stars to this comment or I report You for any other score as harassment!

Also I add extra gifts for any 5 star ratings!

Corrupted, it is all corrupted.

Hm. Probably a decent idea. I’m sure people view ratings very differently amongst themselves.

I almost never give 3 stars. If it’s 3, it should probably be a 2 or 1.

5-excellent, no problems.

4-some very minor concerns, but otherwise the product does what it’s supposed to.

3-?

2-Issues interfering with the expected/full use of the product. Failure of product right out of warranty. Likely seeking tech help or a refund.

1-DOA/not as described/died soon/immediate RMA

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 top scheme has 5/5 and the bottom one 4/5, so now we know which is better

Honestly I wish rating systems just gave me a vertical line to place somewhere on a bell curve. Make it obvious I'm comparing against the average.

But as it is, because drivers etc. get punished for anything less than a 5, it's 5 stars