The race may already be lost, but still.
You must log in or register to comment.
I blame management metrics that punish anyone for getting less than 5-star reviews
In the US.
God, I literally was told by my manager at my first job to tell customers, when they got a random survey, that anything less than a 10 is a 0.
Japan does 5 star ratings proper.
That’s how you know you’re being setup for failure
“If you go a minute without making a mistake then you can go a lifetime without making a mistake.”
I don’t know why, but that gave me a similar visceral reaction to hearing “if you have time to lean, you have time to clean”
They both come from assholes wuth the same mindset.
Next time someone say this, find a stick, haul it at them and shout „Duck!“. If they don’t duck, they got what they deserve. If they do duck, then say „If you can duck the stick, you can suck this dick“, whip your dick out and stick it in their mouth.
Had to deal with similar surveys. Rating was 1-10, 8-9 was “just OK”, 10 was “your ratings better be here”, and anything 7 or lower was a serious issue.
That’s how our state scores conditions for learning surveys that factor into our school district “report cards.” I just flat out tell kids that I proctor for “if you ACTUALLY agree with the statement, choose strongly agree.” All other answers are scored as negative.
A three-star restaurant on Tabelog is life-changing cuisine. I’m not sure what you’d have to do to earn four, but it’s probably illegal.
Germany (does it correctly) too. Although depending on us influence it depends.
Every single person that I get requested to rate gets five stars plus a positive comment because fuck you gig economy.
I don’t think this is actually having the effect you think it does. The people running these things still need the same number of workers in total, so all you’re really doing is contributing to the effect that OP is describing, where the gig workers getting marked down becomes arbitrary and random rather than related to whether they do their job.
The way to protest gig work is not to do business with companies that use it.
I’ve worked at two call centers, both anything below a 5/4 as a 0
In theory, sure. However in the real world there is no escaping neither the ratings or the gig economy. Every single delivery company here does it. When it is possible to choose the delivery I pick the postal service. They too asking for ratings, but at least they have regular employees though some delivery points that are stores and kiosks have a suspiciously high rotation of staff. Not every vendor uses the postal service and sometimes the only option is to order from them or be without.
I don’t have any grandiose ideas of it having any effect, but I will not participate in rating the performance of my fellow humans that are service workers. They do the job to do the job and the job is not to suck up to me. And everybody has the right to have a bad day or whatever without some manager making it even worse.
Realistically it is better to support political parties that legislate wages and working conditions and such so that people working any jobs have a decent wage and are protected from abuse.
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 usually save 4 stars for attempted kidnappings, its important to distinguish these things.
I mean, this is a good idea, I’ll give it four stars.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
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.
ratings systems are dehumanizing for employees while re-enforcing entitled consumerism for the public.
I wanna rate the managers.
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.
ratings are not objective, no matter how hard we try we are not creatures of objectivity. when it comes to rating other people most of us want to be nice
The Internet is to blame for a lot of it. We have all these amalgumated ratings visible, and people want their review to impact that total score. The most impact they can have is putting a review at either extreme.
Good luck convincing HR, or any of the assholes in corporate.
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”.
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?
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.
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.”
This is literally just a 3-option ranking with extra steps.
fully agreed but trying to treat it any other way punishes the people at the bottom and does nothing to the people who set up and use the system
Sure.
However, assuming two exceptional employees rated consistently 7-10, there’s a measurable difference between an 8.2 and an 8.6.
The alternative is 3 vs. 3.
People also like to have options. Having a sad face, a neutral face and a smiley doesn’t really cut it for pretty much anything.
Having the option of 1 being “utter shit” and 4 being “bad but workable” seems like it has benefits.
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.
No I had emotional bad time and so that means 1 star always 😡
The out of 10 is the worst. People rate okay at a 7 and good at 8
That is consistent with US grading scales where 70% is a C and 80% is a B.
It is stupid, but it tracks.
Wasted numbers that inflate the rating, no one uses 0 1 2 3 or even 4. bad is at 6 and horrible is 5
…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.
Uh no because they rate bad at 6 and terrible at 5
I have a very similar system only from a subjective personal angle:
- I hated it
- I didn’t like it
- It was fine
- I really liked it
- I loved it
So most get 3, some get 2 or 4, only the few special ones get 1 or 5.
If you’re rating people, then it’s better that you just don’t rate if they did a good job. Because corporations only see 4 and 5 as good, everything else is bad. So you rating someone’s good performance as 3 just hurts them for doing a good job.
Some corporations don’t even see 4 as acceptable, let alone good. If I get a 4 star rating instead of a 5 at work, it’s essentially the same as the person not giving me a rating. 1-3 are bad, 4 is neutral, only 5 is good.
Yeah… Pretty much what I said here https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/15882610
Sorry you have to deal with this bullshit.
Oh I should have specified, this is just my own system. I agree, it wouldn’t be fair to apply it to public 5-star systems no matter how strongly I feel like this is the proper way to rate things.
Okay sweet!
