Hacker News Reader

I think it's absurd that they try to dictate user behavior based on broad averages, as opposed to normalizing each individual's ratings to fit a standard distribution, then averaging those normalized ratings.

All 5 star scales operate as follows:

5 - Good

4 - Terrible

3 - Terrible

2 - Terrible

1 - Terrible

That seems to have become the norm. To me that's just people misunderstanding how to use a gradual scale.

I recently got a phone call from my apartment management after I left a bunch of 3s and 4s on their annual review, they seemed distraught they got such bad scores. From my point of view they were doing just fine. The fact that they're not excellent in every regard shouldn't be surprising when I'm not paying through my nose to live there, I'm perfectly happy with 3.5/5 since that's what I'm paying for.

It's an ordinal scale with arbitrary meaning. 4 doesn't mean its twice as good as a 2 star rating (there is no interval or ratio). It basically means 5 = all okay! 4 and below there were issues of varying subjective degrees.