I agree with you that ratings should mean something. However, Uber requires an absolute minimum score of 3.8 for drivers to stay on the platform, and a 4.6 minimum for any area that has reasonable driver supply (eg: everywhere). This means every time you rate a driver a 4 it's effectively a statement that they should be fired.
> However, Uber requires an absolute minimum score of 3.8 for drivers to stay on the platform, and a 4.6 minimum for any area that has reasonable driver supply (eg: everywhere). This means every time you rate a driver a 4 it's effectively a statement that they should be fired.
No, it's a statement that the quality is what the customer would rate as a 4 on a 5 point scale. If Uber'a expectations of ratings are unreasonable based on the way it's customer base assigns ratings, then it is Uber, not customers, who should adjust.
Whether Uber or any other company does this doesn't change my premise. Uber is just like others further baking the problem and encouraging people to treat 100% as the status quo which means we have nothing to look forward to. I enjoy being pleasantly surprised when service is above average.
Its the same problem with the game industry has with reviews. If I were to market a game as "so and so" gave it 7/10 no one would care but if I say 9/10, 9.9/10 or better yet 10/10 than we have a marketing headline.
Correct answer is stop using Uber if you don't like their rating system, not risking the livehood of people because it doesn't fit your mental mode of how the world should work.
