Rating Guidelines

[Kosied]

I've raised an issue about the need for standards for ratings, and have been in a discussion about it. The suggestion was given that I should submit it to the Feedback sub-forum ... so here goes. I don't want to recap the whole discussion ... you can read it under my post titled "Standards for Ratings" under "General Discssion". In a nutshell ... the issue is this...

As Local Guides, the idea is that when we rate a place, this is a "trusted opinion" ... but there isn't any sort of consensus about what the different number of stars mean. Some Local Guides give 5 stars to most places, including average places ... other Local Guides only give 5 stars to the special, exceptional places. This leads to a lot of ambiguity in the Local Guide ratings. I fully understand that reviews and ratings are not only given by Local Guides, and that a lot of the reviews and ratings are from the general public ... but my concern is that due to a lack of standards and consistency amongst Local Guides, the ratings we give can be confusing and ambigious ... and we're supposed to be setting the example and be giving a "trusted opinion". If a person looks at a Local Guide's rating for a places and sees 5 stars, does it mean the place is average, good, great or exceptional? As Local Guides, we can't seem to agree on what it means ... so we need some sort of standards which define these for us.

My suggestion is that "guidelines" be given to Local Guides about what the different number of stars represent ... and that, when one rates a place, the app shows a "tooltip" of sort, which highlights what the specified number of stars means.

[NiiloA]

There are also Local Guides who punch in boilerplate reviews and ratings that are of no use to anyone at all. That definitely bugs me more that the lack of standards for ratings as such.

[Felixl]

I am using the UI tool tips as guidelines: 1 For hate, 2 for dislike, 3 for OK 4 for like, 5 for love. IIRC you can see those as tooltips when hovering the stars on desktop web version and in the description box just before you write a review in iOS app.

But I agree. We need guidelines for stuff like this.

[BartP]

I see your issue. But comparing, say restaurants; 5 stars might be a very, very good restaurant (food quality wise), but also very good value for money. These are all subjective ratings and depend on personal experience (how many 3 star restaurants have you visited before you rate the local pizzaria?). In Tripadvisor you have more ways to rate on specific catergories. The rating system in Google maps is at present to simple

[NiiloA]

This is definitely interesting but, at the end of the day, reviews are always subjective and I don't think it's possible - or even desirable! - to get away from that. Rough guidelines are fine but it's hardly possible to nail this issue so that no question marks remain.

[WesL]

I agree with both @Kosied and @NiiloA

Yes, there are many over-simple reviews, sometimes it seems like they're just taking the easy route.
But as reviews are subjective, who are we to say that a "one word" review isn't a clear statement of that individual's thoughts and feelings on the subject.

I do however, tend more towards the ideal presented by @Kosied 

From what I've read so far on this forum, the best way that Google has determined to handle lesser reviews is to out vote them.  That is to say, vote up the reviews that are good, and leave the poor reviews without votes.

[TacianoM]

Hey guys, I've just created a post to suggest objective criteria for rating places.

Feel free to join the topic and help on this:

- https://www.localguidesconnect.com/t5/Feedback-and-Feature-Requests/Rating-Criteria/m-p/45450#U45450

👍

[FredM]

---

@FelixL wrote:

I am using the UI tool tips as guidelines: 1 For hate, 2 for dislike, 3 for OK 4 for like, 5 for love. IIRC you can see those as tooltips when hovering the stars on desktop web version and in the description box just before you write a review in iOS app.

But I agree. We need guidelines for stuff like this.

---

I agree with Felixl in that's also how I've been rating everything. I tried looking at the UI tool tips recently to screen shot for explaining to others, but I have not been able to do it easily (or cleanly)--I've resorted to taking screenshots while holding down the star ratings. I can confirm that the tool tips say:

1 for Hated it

2 for Disliked it

3 for It's okay

4 for Liked it

5 for Loved it

Thus, an establishment that meets expectations and delivers what is intended usually earns a 3star for me. Most chains I review earn a 3star for meeting expectations because they all meet expectations from being held to a strict (franchise) standard, but I don't care to review chains often simply because there isn't much to say, and I don't want my review to be tagged as fake or spam1; however, when an experience at a chain even marginally exceeds expectations, I'll tend to actually write a review and rate it 4star (or even 5star rating) and state what I liked so much about the experience; on the other hand, if expectations are not met, I'll rate it below a 3star with constructive criticism.

With businesses that are not chains, I don't often review right away. I may store a comment or two on Google Keep to remember points from my experience for review later, but I try to develop an understanding for the standard of that type of establishment, i.e., an upscale bar will have a different standard than an All-American diner, which will have a different standard than hole-in-the-wall Vietnamese restaurants, e.g., after having gone to around five hole-in-the-wall Vietnamese restaurants, I know what to expect from hole-in-the-wall Vietnamese restaurants and can rate them according to my expectations scale. I personally create these categories and intentionally do not review until I've established a fair standard for two reasons: (1) to remind myself that culture plays a great deal in how services are provided (e.g., you should expect prompt service at an upscale steakhouse but not necessarily at a mom-and-pop soup restaurant), and (2) to give the Google community an accurate gauge to where this establishment rates to similar establishments. I, also, always strive to give the businesses benefit-of-the-doubt and muster as much reasonable defense for them [I've once rated a diner 2 stars (instead of 1) after serving me raw chicken and ignoring me for the remainder of the meal providing them with the defense that they comped my meal and "I could have gotten up and told them sooner instead of waited for them to come by to inform them"].

I'm mostly trying to provide fair and constructive reviews such that Google Reviews becomes an accurate and helpful tool for all parties (consumers and businesses). [Yelp has had some serious criticism for being inaccurate and filled with pretentious reviews, and being that Google is a company I firmly believe in, I want to do the best I can to help it improve upon Yelp's blunders.] While I understand that reviews (especially the commentary and not the star rating) are subjective, I also still strongly believe that guidelines should be in place so that we're at least subjective *within* guidelines rather than subjective across the board. Bottom line: I think a 3star "meets expectations (of the establishment)" (compared to other establishments of similar nature) is the best guideline we can go off of. Yes, we will have differing opinions, but for the sake of consistent scoring, we just have to try our best to be very objective and scoring based on what an establishment is intended to serve you (e.g. fast food should serve food fast; high-end hair stylist should be friendly and able to cut hair professionally). At least now we have a starting point that 3star means neutral. Have a reason for your 4star. Have a better reason for your 5star. Have constructive criticism for your 2star. Have constructive criticism and strong reasoning for your 1star. The whole notion of justifying your rating with an explanation is what establishes your credentials. This is why a 3star should not need very much explanation, and a 5star should not be the standard for an establishment merely meeting expectations.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

1 Mostly in reference to NiiloA's comments: As much as I don't want to review consistent, cookie-cutter chains as a neutal, "It's okay," 3-star rating (especially since I tend to use boilerplate language like: "It meets expectations; nothing remarkable; nothing frustrating,") in fear of my review being tagged as insincere/fake and/or unnecessarily negative, I *do* think they provide true and valuable feedback and still need to be done. I think that it gives a more accurate rating on establishments over time because (1) it's true in that it truly, merely met expectations, and (2) it combats expired reviews that need to but have not been edited after a business addresses the reviewers concerns, which probably occurs often (expired reviews) since no additional points are rewarded when you edit a review (although, I personally edit reviews fairly often anyway for the sole reason of creating accurate reviews).