1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
The race may already be lost, but still.
I have a very similar system only from a subjective personal angle:
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.
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.
It’s not the rating that’s flawed. It’s that reviews are bought now. There’s minimal real reviews.
No I had emotional bad time and so that means 1 star always 😡
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.
Why are 0 stars not included?
Often not able to be chosen. My company has us review the company on a 1 question survey. CEO told us anything below 7 is bad, anything above 8 is good, and 7-8 is just ignored as "fine" when they review it.
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.
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
Four stars always just means some people gave one star for shipping issues unrelated to the product.
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 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.
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
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
People use it like the one on the top? Never knew about it and never realized. These kind of ratings kinda have personal definitions in each ones head, so not like people even talk about it. I'm pretty sure I rarely gave anything 5 stars in my life.
the top scheme has 5/5 and the bottom one 4/5, so now we know which is better
When it comes to rating products, it seems like there's an expectation to give 5 stars. I guess because there's a sense of not only rating the product, but also the seller - and you'd feel guilty not giving full marks if the product arrived ok and did what it was advertised to do.
In terms of movies/books/games, 4 stars is my default for a piece of media I really enjoyed. 5 stars I'd only give to stuff I believe is near perfect. If I see a book that averages 3.8 to 4 stars online I know it's gonna be great. Anything beyond that is either incredible, or just hasn't had enough reviews yet!
But "ok" implies "some issues".
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".