Suggestion and Policy

Ratings Fix
justsauce16 4 Reviews 191 reads
posted

Everyone is bellyaching about the rating system. That's a fact. I'm not one to just complain, or badmouth the admins, so I've done a bit of thinking about this. The problem stems from the following excerpt in the review guidelines:  
 
"You do not have to give her the ‘extra point’"
 
This puts excess responsibility on the reviewer to give a fair score for the services provided. Given that most reviewers just got their rocks off and probably aren't thinking 100% objectively, that extra point will just be added willy-nilly.  
 
 
Here's the solution:  
In short, Itemized service reviews and aggregated total scores.  
 
For each of the services rendered, the provider gets a 1-10 score.  
This means that, if the provider performs DFK, BBBJ, CFS, they would get 3, 1-10 scores for their work.  
Then, the scores are averaged to determine the aggregate performance score.  
 
   -Performing more services would allow a provider to pad their scores with additional services only if the services provided were actually worthy of high scores.  
   -Performing a limited number of services would allow a provider to score higher only if said services were performed well, but would penalize a provider more if any of those services were performed poorly. It does not explicitly penalize providers for not performing certain services.  
   -Additional data capture would allow the search function to be more granular. Clients would be able to search for who was performing well at a particular service.  
   -Reviews would be more useful to providers because they would have granular feedback on which services they offer score highly and which services they could work on.

TopEntertainer562 reads

With the new score policy I am a little confused. Isn't CIM supposed to be a 10?

...read number 8. CIM isn't mentioned at all.

Everyone is bellyaching about the rating system. That's a fact. I'm not one to just complain, or badmouth the admins, so I've done a bit of thinking about this. The problem stems from the following excerpt in the review guidelines:  
 
"You do not have to give her the ‘extra point’"
 
This puts excess responsibility on the reviewer to give a fair score for the services provided. Given that most reviewers just got their rocks off and probably aren't thinking 100% objectively, that extra point will just be added willy-nilly.  
 
 
Here's the solution:  
In short, Itemized service reviews and aggregated total scores.  
 
For each of the services rendered, the provider gets a 1-10 score.  
This means that, if the provider performs DFK, BBBJ, CFS, they would get 3, 1-10 scores for their work.  
Then, the scores are averaged to determine the aggregate performance score.  
 
   -Performing more services would allow a provider to pad their scores with additional services only if the services provided were actually worthy of high scores.  
   -Performing a limited number of services would allow a provider to score higher only if said services were performed well, but would penalize a provider more if any of those services were performed poorly. It does not explicitly penalize providers for not performing certain services.  
   -Additional data capture would allow the search function to be more granular. Clients would be able to search for who was performing well at a particular service.  
   -Reviews would be more useful to providers because they would have granular feedback on which services they offer score highly and which services they could work on.

Register Now!