4 ms·
>> “Cab” drivers didn’t have visible habits around their ratings, weren’t checking them frequently and when we spoke about them, they told us that this wasn’t s
by kristianc 9y ago
>> “Cab” drivers didn’t have visible habits around their ratings, weren’t checking them frequently and when we spoke about them, they told us that this wasn’t something they’d considered before or something they were particularly concerned about. They were confident in their skills and ability to find work outside of their platforms, and viewed ratings more as performance indicators for their platform owners — the main fear being a drop below 3.5 stars, where they might be dropped from the platform completely.
This is a shorthand way of saying the drivers themselves aren't even checking their ratings, as long as they're above the performance threshold! This paragraph gives away who 'ratings portability' is really serving, and it is not the drivers.
- pavel_lishin 9y agoIt's neither the drivers nor the customers, either. When I need a Lyft, I don't get a choice between three drivers with various star ratings - I enter my location, and someone accepts the ride. The rating is only good for the employer.
- jjevanoorschot 9y agoThe rating also benefits the customers. You don't get a choice between drivers, because only drivers with a high enough score will be allowed to continue on the platform. This might be harsh to the drivers, but it makes for a good customer experience. It's one of the reasons why the experience of using Uber/Lyft is so much better than the experience of using most traditional cabs.
- Pamar 9y agoUnless Uber/Lyft decide that below-4-stars rated drivers can keep working for them... they just receive a smaller cut of the price paid by the customer.