Ambient Cruelty

I thought it was a call back to praise being dismissed and thought less intelligent.

I remember it also being like that in the small forums I remember fondly. We didn't have upvotes, but I still noticed that agreement is shorter than disagreement. But that was fine, since we kept talking through the months and years, we actually learned a lot. The flamewars very never so bad because we were few and close enough to be able to not "stop" them, but simply throw all fuel into the fire right away, and then cleared out the air after it was all burned. I remember a guy thanking us when he finally got around to not being a bit of a racist anymore.. We ribbed on him occasionally for several years, but never in a mean way, and he ended up writing us a thank you letter style post. I forgot all the details, but I'll never forget that actually happened. Still proud of that guy whatever the nick was ^^ That really can only happen in small, long-term communities, I think. Maybe it's simply not possible to "scale" that indefinitely, because it's about human capacity.

https://baymard.com/blog/line-length-readability

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

I guess I go with Nietzsche's idea that Christianity is an inherently negative faith. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that, but you're basically trying to live divine law in a material world. That's not exactly going to bring out the kind and trusting in people, even if the divine law is love.

For the record, I rarely leave reviews. When I do, though, it's only for the exceptionally bad or the exceptionally good.

In other words, we successfully encode the difference between "wow, juhzy only complains when its really bad" vs "ignore juhzy, they complain about everything." This vs. the more naive and destructive "5 bad reviews and you're out" we seem to do too much of now.

I suppose it should work the other way too. Someone who always "5-stars" everything should be ignored as well.

The point is that the system right now seems to have a negative bias and is able to do so because of a glut of providers which it burns through like an expendable, renewable resource. (Which morally sucks because they are real people with real lives.)

Some people can complain about anything. (When I'm in a grumpy mood, I certainly will. Puppies? Too wiggly. Sunshine? Too bright!) When I read a review, my goal is to find out what I would think of the place or thing. The reviewers I look for are balanced and thoughtful, able to point the good points about something they hate and the bad points of the things they love.

I have a very smart friend who apparently has never liked a movie. If one comes up, he will have a complaint about it. If you see one at a theater with him, before the credits have finished rolling, you'll be getting a list of his issues. It's exhausting. And it means I'll never listen to him on the topic of whether a movie is good.

It's the classic stopped clock: it's right twice a day, but you can't know which times, so why look at it?

From a perspective that is external to your inner monologue, I have no way of knowing. Even if your criticisms are valid, I know too many people who seem to never talk about the positive parts to know whether you're just perpetually unimpressed. Or, more likely, you're the type that never talks about the nice parts. I'm guessing this because of your comment elsewhere in the tree that specifically asks why one should compliment when something is doing what it's supposed to do. (The answer is that people usually look at reviews for confirmation that X is as advertised.)

Or there's actually nothing redeeming about the subject of your review.

So yes, taken in context I would end up throwing your opinion away. In practice, I don't check every reviewer's review history, but maybe that would be a useful signal to see.

The main drawback I see (assuming that you are seeking an honest picture of that provider's quality, and not a tool for punishment) is that you don't meaningfully capture people who only write reviews to flag serious problems.

Quite. If I'd bought stock in that logical fallacy site that was doing the rounds a while back HN would've made me a billionaire by now.

I guess that makes sense. Individual end-users only ever see the tip of the ice-berg when interacting with a large organization, so they are likely to blame the parts of it that they interact with while ignoring the deeper root-causes. If you let them blame the customer service rep's attitude or the size that their vegetables are chopped then you wind up trying to over-optimize around making the reps smile or definining exactly how to chop the veggies. But if all you know is that people aren't happy with the experience you send a process minded person who is familiar with the whole stack of how things get done to figure out why the service reps are in a foul mood or how come irregularly chopped veggies are winding up on peoples' plates.

Basically, you sit down at a restaurant, order a meal, and on the way out, the host or hostess ask you to mark off checkboxes rating the experience on a scall of 0 to 11. Eleven being the Spinal Tap interpretation, and Zero being the hospital visit.

We now face three realities at this point, completely disconnected and untethered from one another, doomed to resolve as if it were some Cellular Automaton rule set from hell.

On the customer's side of things, maybe they let their small child mark the check boxes to satisfy the child's curiosity, maybe it's the waitress' mom dropping by for a visit to take pictures at their first summer job. Maybe it's an actual normal customer, a random person with with a pulse, fresh off the street. Anything goes. Straight A's or all balls.

The wait staff, have no control and don't actually know how they're being judged. By what criteria, or rules. They just know what it means to wait tables. They've been in a restaurant before, and they know what middle of the road is. Unless specifically advised of the level of service, they observe their surroundings, and follow their instinct, drawing on prior experience and whatever they learn as they go.

The analyst that receives the feedback however, operates according to rules both alien and strange to normal people. Only 9, 10 and 11 are positive ratings. All others are an insult to the business, and all parties associated with an 8 rating or less must be eliminated from the system. They don't want to see paying customers that aren't ecstatic, nor do they want employees delivering service that catches a middling rating. To them, a 9 represents a danger zone, threatening profits with a backslide.

The person who explained this principle to me was my boss' boss, and it was in this moment that I knew the ship I was on was aimed at an iceberg, and that I needed to escape. He was referring to our OKR process, while simultaneously explaining this principle in relation to our review process. It was a very "Steve Ballmer/Stack Ranking/Cut the Weakest Link" sort of discussion, and I stuck my thumb out and found another job, for better pay, and less demand within weeks.

I've also heard of A. Something was wrong B. Good job—met expectations C. Something was unusually good Sort of like ride-share "give a complement" feature, since they know everyone gives 5 stars.

Another option (that I've never seen) is to tell the rater their response will be weighted based on their previous scores. So if someone who always gives 5 stars gives a 4 star, it's interpreted as a negative response. But if someone who gives majority 3 star reviews gives a 4 it's interpreted as positive.