MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip to memes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agoFive-star-ratings everywherelemmy.zipimagemessage-square150linkfedilinkarrow-up1793arrow-down133file-text
arrow-up1760arrow-down1imageFive-star-ratings everywherelemmy.zipMonkderVierte@lemmy.zip to memes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square150linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squareProx@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up18·2 months agoThis is literally just a 3-option ranking with extra steps.
minus-squarehitmyspot@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up6·2 months agoYes, but with some studies to back it up.
minus-squareyyyesss?@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·2 months agofully agreed but trying to treat it any other way punishes the people at the bottom and does nothing to the people who set up and use the system
minus-squareCapricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 months agoSure. However, assuming two exceptional employees rated consistently 7-10, there’s a measurable difference between an 8.2 and an 8.6. The alternative is 3 vs. 3. People also like to have options. Having a sad face, a neutral face and a smiley doesn’t really cut it for pretty much anything. Having the option of 1 being “utter shit” and 4 being “bad but workable” seems like it has benefits.
This is literally just a 3-option ranking with extra steps.
Yes, but with some studies to back it up.
fully agreed but trying to treat it any other way punishes the people at the bottom and does nothing to the people who set up and use the system
Sure.
However, assuming two exceptional employees rated consistently 7-10, there’s a measurable difference between an 8.2 and an 8.6.
The alternative is 3 vs. 3.
People also like to have options. Having a sad face, a neutral face and a smiley doesn’t really cut it for pretty much anything.
Having the option of 1 being “utter shit” and 4 being “bad but workable” seems like it has benefits.