Re:Uber Scam in Brazil – Drivers Have ‘Challenges’ Ending Trips
by Razengan on Saturday September 29, 2018 @08:31PM
(#18103834)
> If there’s a problem with Uber’s rating system, it’s that it’s a five-star system.
"Single axis" ratings systems are unintuitive, unreliable, prone to "gaming", and thus often self-defeating.
I think person-to-person services should have at least 2 rating axes:
• Was the service rendered [as advertised]? Yes / No
This would be for whether the driver dropped you off at the destination, or the seller delivered the advertised item, or the room and facilities matched the description.
A simple confirmation that the contract was completed; emotions should not enter into this rating.
• How do you feel? Disappointed / Neutral / Pleased
This must be presented in such a way that users DO NOT ASSUME that "Neutral" == "Bad." It should be OK to rate Neutral, because that's how we feel about most of the things in life.
I believe this was the original intent of the 5 star systems to begin with: 3 would be neutral/average/okay, 4 would be above average, and 5 would be exceptional/rare.
Or, since they are STARS, even 1 would be good.
But in practice, our collective psychology thinks anything <5 is bad.
Maybe introduce tomatoes or poo in addition to stars. Stars would be how good it was, and poo would be how many things annoyed you.
"Single axis" ratings systems are unintuitive, unreliable, prone to "gaming", and thus often self-defeating.
I think person-to-person services should have at least 2 rating axes:
• Was the service rendered [as advertised]? Yes / No
This would be for whether the driver dropped you off at the destination, or the seller delivered the advertised item, or the room and facilities matched the description.
A simple confirmation that the contract was completed; emotions should not enter into this rating.
• How do you feel? Disappointed / Neutral / Pleased
This must be presented in such a way that users DO NOT ASSUME that "Neutral" == "Bad." It should be OK to rate Neutral, because that's how we feel about most of the things in life.
I believe this was the original intent of the 5 star systems to begin with: 3 would be neutral/average/okay, 4 would be above average, and 5 would be exceptional/rare.
Or, since they are STARS, even 1 would be good.
But in practice, our collective psychology thinks anything <5 is bad.
Maybe introduce tomatoes or poo in addition to stars. Stars would be how good it was, and poo would be how many things annoyed you.