Quote:
Originally Posted by Lubicon
Okay, I have to ask if this is actually a thing?
In my world 5 stars is absolute perfection for a rating. A business would have to have provided amazing service to warrant a 5. 3 stars is 'average' but average means completely acceptable in my world. Giving a rating of 3 would mean (to me) that everything was I would have expected and I got the service I expected. What's wrong with that?
Am I out of the norm in thinking this way? Nothing wrong with a 3, I would rarely ever give out a five. Am I that out of touch with online ratings? Or has grade inflation crept into our rating system now as well?
|
I don't know if you're out of the norm, but I can tell you every single business would rather you not write a review at all before you'd give less than five stars. No business wants to be average or below because customers prefer the best business. If I could, I'd
pay you to take down a three-star review because they're that bad. If you're three-starring businesses, you're damaging them, just so you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak
No, you're right. 3 out of 5 stars is perfectly acceptable if the service was worth 3 out of 5 stars.
If people are too stupid to figure that out and expect perfection on everything, that's not your problem.
One way to guarantee you're not getting a 5 star review from me is to play that stupid "anything less than 5 stars might as well be zero". Screw you, fine I'll give you zero and you tell me that's the same as 3 stars.
|
No, he's wrong. Pricks give three stars. They're not acceptable unless your goal is to hurt the business, in which case congratulations, goal achieved.