# The Fault Rests Within the Stars....



## Sloan (Oct 20, 2015)

The fault of the star-rating system rests within the system itself. In other words, the more riders you have that rate you at anything less than five stars, the more difficult it becomes to increase your rating. (Ever try to increase your GPA ?)

Firstly, the rating system needs to be fractured into less than whole numbers. For example, 1 star, 2 stars, 3 stars, 4 stars, 4.25, 4.5, 4.75, and finally 5 stars. (If a driver is receiving ratings of 1, 2, or 3 stars, the incremental values are not gong to help).

Again, at core is appreciating how much damage is done to one's rating by a "4" as opposed to a "5".

I am not going to explain the math, because, frankly, there are several brilliant posts that explains HOW the math works--and they are right on target.

My purpose here to explain why the current rating system is inherently unfair to drivers.

Secondly, once a fractured rating system is in place, riders acquired between (Party Hours) should not be afforded to chance to cast stars until the next 24 hour period.

Drivers should not be held to task because their fare(s) are too drunk to realize how ridiculous they are acting.

(Really? I get a one-star because the rider is too drunk to comprehend the fact that disembarking on the freeway at 2am is not safe?)

(Whereas the next day I get 5 stars when the inebriated rider is thankful for getting home safely).

Finally, a multi-starred rating system makes it easier on the riders to grant a rating as close as possible to their experience.

Cheers,

Eddie Sloan


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

This has been discussed ad infinitum. I suppose there is a reason for that. You might want to consider that the rating system used by the TNC companies is actually by design and functions very much as intended. Turn over is very high amongst drivers, drivers own and maintain the cars, thousands of drivers are signed up every day across the country and world.

Uber and Lyft need ways to control and manipulate their drivers during their short tenure as driver and they need to do it in a way that does not provide evidence that they are employers. The peer to peer rating system provides them a bit of that control. It is draconian, but it is cheaper than providing actual face time with Uber representatives. 

Uber knows the statistical reality, so much so that they are willing to categorically kill off 10% of their drivers as a simple means of decision making. It is far less costly than trying to go on a case by case basis. 

You posted your own name, which signals to me a certain kind of willingness to account for what you are doing, a certain kind of personal agency. I am certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Use your own best judgement in evaluating any given ride, in place of some vague number which reflects a meaningless average. Don't start a trip until you feel good to go with the pax. Don't let the fear of your present pax rating you poorly effect the way you go about your current business (see the thread about the Lyft driver macing pax). Drive smart and it all comes out in the wash. Good luck.


----------



## Sloan (Oct 20, 2015)

Huberis said:


> This has been discussed ad infinitum. I suppose there is a reason for that. You might want to consider that the rating system used by the TNC companies is actually by design and functions very much as intended. Turn over is very high amongst drivers, drivers own and maintain the cars, thousands of drivers are signed up every day across the country and world.
> 
> Uber and Lyft need ways to control and manipulate their drivers during their short tenure as driver and they need to do it in a way that does not provide evidence that they are employers. The peer to peer rating system provides them a bit of that control. It is draconian, but it is cheaper than providing actual face time with Uber representatives.
> 
> ...


Thank you for a well thought out, candid, and lucid reply. In the final analysis, you are, perhaps, correct. Nevertheless, your thought that: "...the rating system used by the TNC companies is actually by design and functions very much as intended..." is EXACTLY the problem as, arguably, the function serves not to allow mutually simultaneous beneficial intention, rather a way to maintain control over drivers, and whereas I agree this is necessary, my point is fractional rating allows a diffusion along a graduated scale which serves both the driver as well as Uber along a far more accurate continuum. Attempting to discern or evaluate the difference between a 4-star ride and a 5-star ride can be far more easily determined if there is a graduated level of grade.

Think of it this way: if I give a student an 89% should I not be allowed to enter a grade of "A" or am I stuck give a "B" since after all an "A" is obtained only after 90-91%?

Your line of reasoning is perfectly accurate. The problem I have is that this status quo, (Uber and Lyft need ways to control and manipulate their drivers...) is what drives this rating system, and why this system is inherently faulty, assuming that Uber (and Lyft?) want stability within their driving force.

I learned a great deal from your post:

I will try not to allow an arbitrary rating affect how I perform....
Deciding who and where I pick up will become important....
I won't start a trip until I am comfortable,

And

The rating is what is is.

Thanks for the reality check.

After three days of driving, I realize I have a long way to go. And miles before I sleep.....


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

Sloan we agree. I should share with you my belief that the rating system is a side effect of much deeper issues. It is abusive, but should be expected for a variety of reasons. I was fortunate in that Uber had been around for quite a while before they ever arrived in my town. I had time to do a lot of research about them and without question, the fact that I had been driving for a living so long, I was in a position to fairly accurately size up the reality that is TNC today.

You seem to be ahead of the curve with respect to connecting your observations to reality. So, I see no reason why you need a constant peer to peer review session to dictate your behavior, this isn't kindergarden. Maybe it is?

three days of driving is nothing. The law and observation of Uber suggests 90% of all drivers who drive 500 trips fall above a 4.6. There is nothing to suggest you will have trouble with that as time progresses. Even 500 rides is a drop in the bucket.

Rather than worry about the rating system being broken, celebrate your ability to perceive what is happening and then go deeper, consider the structure behind the side effect which enables or encourages the problem.

Too many drivers stew over what are mostly side effects and distractions. That too is by design.


----------



## Avi-ator (Sep 18, 2015)

Sloan said:


> I get a one-star because the rider is too drunk to comprehend the fact that disembarking on the freeway at 2am is not safe?)


This flawed system requires the pax to do a job they are unqualified for...be a professional critic. With that great 'power' comes great responsibility, but you will inevitably get that pax with a perpetual bad attitude. If you drive late nights/early am the quoted scenario is also an example where pax is completely unable/unqualified to perform that job with impartiality. Most pax rely on emotional stimuli vs the merits of ride quality and safety. The challenge of drivers is to play that "guess what my emotional triggers are" game which is sometimes lost the second the pax sees your pic on their screen. The moral of the story, this is why many will advise to do right, and completely ignore the flawed star system, it's a recipe to drive you bonkers.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

Avi-ator said:


> This flawed system requires the pax to do a job they are unqualified for...be a professional critic. With that great 'power' comes great responsibility, but you will inevitably get that pax with a perpetual bad attitude. If you drive late nights/early am the quoted scenario is also an example where pax is completely unable/unqualified to perform that job with impartiality. Most pax rely on emotional stimuli vs the merits of ride quality and safety. The challenge of drivers is to play that "guess what my emotional triggers are" game which is sometimes lost the second the pax sees your pic on their screen. The moral of the story, this is why many will advise to do right, and completely ignore the flawed star system, it's a recipe to drive you bonkers.


The system isn't flawed, it is by design. It is manipulative and designed to control drivers while making pax feel as if their opinion somehow matters. It is cheaper than having managers in the field and helps them avoid jeopardizing thei independent contractor status of their drivers.


----------

