3 ms·
The solution seems pretty clear: set a high bar before giving a one-star review, but be ruthless about giving it for behavior that's beyond the pale, like in yo
by akkartik 12y ago
The solution seems pretty clear: set a high bar before giving a one-star review, but be ruthless about giving it for behavior that's beyond the pale, like in your story.
Another way to phrase the heuristic might be: be lenient toward incompetence (including the bad turn in OP), but strict toward malice or unethical behavior.
Yet another phrasing: if the guy was CEO of a large company, say mozilla, should his behavior get him fired? If so, give him a one-star review. I find such thought experiments changing relative status to be quite useful.
- chrismcb 12y agoWhy should you be lenient towards incompetence. Would you want incompetent people working for you if you were any employer?
- graeme 12y agoYou could perhaps give a two, three or a four star review for various degrees of incompetence. It depends on the review system. The article was addressed at five stars systems, where one star reviews do tend to have too low a bar for some, whereas others never leave negative reviews of any sort. Other system are good/bad and there it's a harder choice whether to leave criticism. There's incompetence, and there's something that wasn't good but doesn't necessarily signify systemic incompetence. Leaving a review marked "bad" can't distinguish between those two, at least in the eyes of those that perceive it.