Tag Archives: psychology

This is a 5 star blog post

21 Sep

This is a 5 star blog post… or is it a 1 star blog post? Well you’re reading it, you decide. The star rating is the grandfather of social validation and review mechanisms. Migrating from the hospitality industry it moved to the entertainment industry before slipping effortlessly onto websites where it makes perfect sense for our attention deficit, fragmented, time-poor online world.

Copeland image: The problem with star ratings.With a single click you can sum up your entire experience of a product, service, or entity and be off to your next online destination. Conversely, no time to investigate a product? Just check the star rating. Everyone wins? Well no, and for the typical implementation of star rating systems here’s why:

It’s too democratic
The leveling power of the Internet has done some wonderful things. Bypassing the media, it has given a voice to people where previously their frustrations and delight would be confined to a small circle of friends and peers.

Mainstream social media hasn’t addressed this yet, but its problem is that in many ways influence and positioning vastly overshadow experience & knowledge. That’s for another post, but in the context of star ratings it means that everyone has the same level of authority when they rate something. So what’s wrong with that?

Well, should you really be allowed to rate something if you’ve never actually bought the product or experienced the service yourself? Why should you have the power to influence others based on hear-say, or worse, in the pursuit of an ill-informed agenda? Especially considering your star rating is elevated to the same level of influence as someone who actually paid for the product or service.

A star rating for a meal or movie accounts for a passive activity with a very short timeline. Should it be applied to a complex product or service with which you interact for a period of months or years? The blanket democracy takes no account of whether you read the instructions, ignored the warnings, let alone whether you paid for the product.

It’s open to abuse
Running a campaign or launching a product? Why not just buy 5 star reviews. Or go the extra step and buy 1 star reviews to be applied to your competitors.

Electronic Arts suffered the wrath of agenda driven star rating abuse when they released Spore, a PC game with what was seen by consumers as having  draconian anti-piracy measures. An organised backlash resulted in 837 1 star reviews being posted on Amazon within days, many by people who had never bought the game. Maybe this was a fair rating of the anti-piracy features, but it tarred every aspect of the product with the same brush.

It amplifies inherent bias.
If you pass my imaginary gate for people who have actually paid for the product then we run into the next huge failing. Inherent bias.
If you’ve committed to the point where you shell out money for a product or service then you’re pre-disposed to like it. There’s also the documented need to validate our decision. If you’ve ever looked for a review of a movie after you’ve watched it, or searched for a product review for the gadget sitting next to you on your sofa, as I have, then you’re probably looking for approval via social validation. You’ll be inclined to leave a higher rating as a result.

At the other end of the scale are those looking to assuage their anger with a 1 star review. What star ratings don’t show is the vast majority of people who find the product satisfactory. Have you ever taken the time to rate, or review  something that you were mildly pleased with, or was satisfactory? This evangelism amplifies both end of the scale, leaving the middle ground in a vacuum. It’s the reason youtube is looking for alternatives to star ratings. And if they are I’d wager the big e-commerce sites are as well.

Advertisements

Why everyone hates the BBC news website redesign

22 Jul

tasty poutineThe BBC has recently redesigned its news website… and the consensus  is that people hate it. Not my words, hate crops up time and time again in the comments that appeared in BBC Editor Steve Herman’s blog post introducing the new look. Also present are disappointing, awful, horrid, ugly, appalling, disgusting and a whole host of terms that would be put to better use describing what Poutine looks like.

There are some positive reactions, but the overwhelming majority are negative, with a few going as far as saying they’d stop using the site and go elsewhere, although I suspect they won’t. For the record, I love it; so to understand what might be driving the comments it’s worth considering a few things:

Updating a site of this size is a huge undertaking and a substantial investment of time, effort and money. This isn’t something that the BBC’s design and technical teams wouldn’t undertake without good reason; especially when you consider that bbc.co.uk’s global reach of all daily internet traffic is 2%, of which half of visits are to the news site.

The design team mentions that they talked to audience groups, held one-to-one user testing sessions, and invited several thousand visitors to try a prototype. Unless the design team decided to ignore all their findings you can be sure that we wouldn’t be seeing the new design it if it wasn’t an improvement, so why the disconnect?

I suspect there’s a couple of factors at play here. Firstly, there’s a common adage online that your competition is only a click away. Whilst this is true, users will often learn to cope with a site’s problems and sub-consciously work around them. User will even go so far as to blame themselves for a site’s failings, assuming that they’re at fault or ‘just missing something’.

This behaviour is especially strong if a site’s content is good, and the onerous alternative is conduct a possibly lengthy search for an alternative. Once a user has learned their way around a site’s problems, they become invisible. This acceptance is what leads people to get upset by change, even if it’s for the better.

I remember when the previous BBC News website was new. Thinking back, I remember finding the huge amount of information and links bewildering. Now stop and consider how someone with cognitive difficulties would struggle and you can see what might be driving a re-design. Especially as the BBC has a remit to be accessible to all.

social validationI also think there’s a very strong degree of social validation occurring here. However much we like to think of ourselves as strong-minded individuals, we have a desire to conform and be accepted by others. In this instance I suspect a few strong negative reactions started to influence the opinion of others. This effect is magnified as more people join in. The effect can be so strong that it can make someone question their own first impressions and reverse their opinions.

To end, I’d suggest that if you waited a year and offered all the people posting negative comments the choice of going back to the previous site? Most would reject the offer.

So until the next redesign and corresponding outcry, I’d be interested to hear what you think of the new design?

P.S. it’s fine if  you don’t love it.