My one and only experience using Uber was with a driver who had no clue where anything was, clearly wasn't from around the place, and from what I could tell violated two traffic laws.
So what do I do, give him a bad rating? No, because this person probably needed the money, and a rating under 4.5 gets you shitcanned in an already rigged system.
Yes, except it's not really a fair system. A 4.5/5.0, to me, is an excellent score. That's an A- if it were a grade on a math test. Yet in Uber, a 4.5 means you get your driving privileges revoked. How does that make sense? It isn't a system in which I can fairly and accurately vote someone's work.
Continuing the test analogy, I don't want to eat at a restaurant that got rated a B by the health department. There are many cases where not being good enough to get an A- means you aren't good enough to do it professionally. This is no different.
It depends on what the score represents. If a 4.4 means you take a wrong turn here and there then I don't mind. If it means they constantly speed but other users don't care then I do mind.
I feel the same happens with Airbnb. All ratings are between 4.5 and 5. I think people feel that they have to give good ratings as they feel the 'know' the host and want to be kind. As a result the ratings are kinda useless. I try to be honest, but don't like to be the outlier either...
> Yet in Uber, a 4.5 means you get your driving privileges revoked.
If that is unreasonable, why is that the system? If I can have nothing but 4.6+ drivers then why wouldn't I want that? If Uber doesn't have enough over 4.6 drivers, wouldn't they simply lower their standards? I can only assume that isn't a problem.
If your driver violated two traffic laws, you should most definitely rate them poorly. They're a hazard for everyone on the road and should reconsider their line of work. No one is entitled to any job, especially a job that can very easily kill other people. There's a reason why many work vehicles have "how's my driving?" stickers on the back.
This is the sort of fastidiousness that Krugman talks about in this article[1]. In the old system, that person would probably not have the job in the first place, since the number of drivers was a fraction of what they are today, but since you are now personally forced to deal with the precariousness of their situation, suddenly the situation is disagreeable.
I took an Uber ride where the driver was totally unbelievable, couldn't be more distracted. Swerving while changing Pandora stations, accepting phone calls, diddling with his phone, diddling with every damn control in the car, and ran a red light. It amazes me there's people who not only believe it's acceptable to do this at all but acceptable to so this with paying customers in your car.
I didn't complain though. Why? I had already complained about another driver who was going 50 MPH down a narrow city street as well as being super rude and taking a ridiculously long route way out of the way. So I didn't want to look like a complainer or make it look like I was trying to get a free ride (they refunded my ride when I complained about the other driver).
You got downvoted but I somewhat agree with you. I almost never give less than 5 stars unless I think the driver is really endangering people out there.
In any other situation in the world when someone is rude to you as a customer you just shrug it off, maybe you tell your friend "The guy at the shoe store was so mean today". And I know at all of our jobs we have some days where we just half-ass things or are short with people. But suddenly in the "sharing economy" I get to constantly vote whether or not people should keep their jobs. It just seems so unfair to me, like I'm the emperor in Gladiator or something. I would hate to give someone 2 stars, they lose the gig, and now can't make rent or something.
So what do I do, give him a bad rating? No, because this person probably needed the money, and a rating under 4.5 gets you shitcanned in an already rigged system.
Quite the revolution indeed.