4 ms·

You're correct. But it's also useless without the service provider, and the store specifically asked me if the app was good at trading stocks, linking bank acco

You're correct. But it's also useless without the service provider, and the store specifically asked me if the app was good at trading stocks, linking bank accounts, tracking stocks. If we stick with your perspective, no, it's not. It's a pointless app without the service it consumes. And today the service frustrated a bunch of its core users. A good rating on the play store serves as advertising. It helps the app creator, and in this case the service provider, gain customers and make money. They probably should be penalized heavily for the way their users experienced service degradations today that made the application useless.

dataflow 6y ago
> But it's also useless without the service provider, and the store specifically asked me if the app was good at trading stocks, linking bank accounts, tracking stocks. This confirms what I said though. You tell the store "this app isn't good at trading stocks" because "GME was made unavailable for trading"? For that logic to follow, it would mean the app misled you or confused you when GME wasn't available for trading. But that's obviously not what happened here. Blaming it on the app for this seems very much like blaming your bus driver because the transit company changed the schedule.
- always_left 6y ago
  We aren't saying "this app isn't good at trading stocks" We're saying this company is not good at trading stocks. The review section should be an honest forum for the app and the service the company can provide through the app. Do you really expect the common person to point out if the app made followed the fundamentals of UI/UX design? The review is to express users' experience, which can involve poor app design and/or poor service.
  - dataflow 6y ago
    > Do you really expect the common person to point out if the app made followed the fundamentals of UI/UX design? What? No. I expect them to say "it looked like my GME orders were submitted, but I don't see them going through", or things like that, if such problems existed. You don't need to be a UX expert to review a poor UX. But when the store asks you "is this app good at trading stocks" and you say "no it's awful, and I'm also not saying this app isn't good at trading stocks", you're not answering the question they're asking.

dataflow 6y ago

> But it's also useless without the service provider, and the store specifically asked me if the app was good at trading stocks, linking bank accounts, tracking stocks. This confirms what I said though. You tell the store "this app isn't good at trading stocks" because "GME was made unavailable for trading"? For that logic to follow, it would mean the app misled you or confused you when GME wasn't available for trading. But that's obviously not what happened here. Blaming it on the app for this seems very much like blaming your bus driver because the transit company changed the schedule.

always_left 6y ago
We aren't saying "this app isn't good at trading stocks" We're saying this company is not good at trading stocks. The review section should be an honest forum for the app and the service the company can provide through the app. Do you really expect the common person to point out if the app made followed the fundamentals of UI/UX design? The review is to express users' experience, which can involve poor app design and/or poor service.
- dataflow 6y ago
  > Do you really expect the common person to point out if the app made followed the fundamentals of UI/UX design? What? No. I expect them to say "it looked like my GME orders were submitted, but I don't see them going through", or things like that, if such problems existed. You don't need to be a UX expert to review a poor UX. But when the store asks you "is this app good at trading stocks" and you say "no it's awful, and I'm also not saying this app isn't good at trading stocks", you're not answering the question they're asking.