3 ms·

This does not follow. Even in a system where 3 stars means excellent, 4 stars means once in a lifetime, and 5 stars means Platonic Ideal, I'm still going to loo

This does not follow. Even in a system where 3 stars means excellent, 4 stars means once in a lifetime, and 5 stars means Platonic Ideal, I'm still going to look for restaurants (or drivers or network routers or whatever the thing is) that are as close to 5* as possible. Do I subdivide between 4.45 and 4.47 stars? No. But in general I'm going to sort my results by some measure of quality. I'm also optimizing over other variables, but to the extent quality is one of those variables, there's no reason to settle for OK when Excellent is available. I'm definitely not going to voluntarily get worse food so I can protest the idea of ratings. And as long as that's the case, there will always be pressure for people and services that aren't "Excellent" to go for the 5 star anyway, and as long as they're going for it, there'll be a social pressure to provide it. The problem isn't linguistic, it's game theoretic.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
xoa 8y ago
I don't think you've thought this through entirely, primarily because your analysis here though misses out on a cost function for stars. >I'm definitely not going to voluntarily get worse food so I can protest the idea of ratings. Yeah, but most people (maybe including you) certainly will "voluntarily get worse food" if you consider the price difference sufficient. In a system where 3 stars means good or excellent it can be expected there will be a non-linear increase in cost and skill requirements to hit 4 or 5 stars. They will be rarer, likely less convenient, and certainly more expensive. For a special occasion sure, maybe you go for the very best. But in general many people will be perfectly happy with a lower starred establishment that is more affordable and convenient and still perfectly decent. Sometimes people just want to fill their stomachs for the purpose of continued survival in a reasonably pleasant fashion, not have a magical gourmet experience. Scale compression removes visibility for this basic tradeoff right? I mean, we can even find a direct example of this in the food world right now: Michelin Stars. It's a 1 to 3 scale and even a single one is a big deal. But the standards necessary to qualify and maintain it are not cheap for the restaurant. I remember reading of a very nice restaurant in a more run down area of France that had earned a star, and were very proud of it, but ultimately decided to give it up because it resulted in them being priced out of the general range of locals. Conversely there is nothing bad about going to even a 1 Michelin star restaurant, it'll still be likely to be very good.
- dcole2929 8y ago
  Read this story in December when it happened and was absolutely shocked but it makes so much sense. https://www.eater.com/2017/12/27/16821648/chef-returns-michelin-star-le-france-jerome-brochot https://www.eater.com/2017/12/27/16821648/chef-returns-miche...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

xoa 8y ago

I don't think you've thought this through entirely, primarily because your analysis here though misses out on a cost function for stars. >I'm definitely not going to voluntarily get worse food so I can protest the idea of ratings. Yeah, but most people (maybe including you) certainly will "voluntarily get worse food" if you consider the price difference sufficient. In a system where 3 stars means good or excellent it can be expected there will be a non-linear increase in cost and skill requirements to hit 4 or 5 stars. They will be rarer, likely less convenient, and certainly more expensive. For a special occasion sure, maybe you go for the very best. But in general many people will be perfectly happy with a lower starred establishment that is more affordable and convenient and still perfectly decent. Sometimes people just want to fill their stomachs for the purpose of continued survival in a reasonably pleasant fashion, not have a magical gourmet experience. Scale compression removes visibility for this basic tradeoff right? I mean, we can even find a direct example of this in the food world right now: Michelin Stars. It's a 1 to 3 scale and even a single one is a big deal. But the standards necessary to qualify and maintain it are not cheap for the restaurant. I remember reading of a very nice restaurant in a more run down area of France that had earned a star, and were very proud of it, but ultimately decided to give it up because it resulted in them being priced out of the general range of locals. Conversely there is nothing bad about going to even a 1 Michelin star restaurant, it'll still be likely to be very good.

dcole2929 8y ago
Read this story in December when it happened and was absolutely shocked but it makes so much sense. https://www.eater.com/2017/12/27/16821648/chef-returns-michelin-star-le-france-jerome-brochot https://www.eater.com/2017/12/27/16821648/chef-returns-miche...