>
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.