The five-star rating system has inadvertently created a binary approach to reviewing experiences, products, or services. Most reviews are either glowing or scathing, leaving little room for nuanced perspectives. This system oversimplifies experiences that are often complex and multi-faceted.
In the podcast “Anthropocene Reviewed,” they point out the absurdity of this. The podcast itself is a critique of our need to review everything around us. Why does everything need a rating? I’ve observed that the compulsion to categorize and label often robs us of the richness of the experience itself.
So, what’s the alternative? One might argue for more nuanced systems or even for the radical idea of not reviewing at all. After all, not every experience can be distilled into a star rating. Think about it: Does a stunning sunset or an emotionally charged conversation with a loved one deserve a rating? Some things are just beyond stars.
Yet, despite its flaws, the five-star system isn’t entirely useless. It’s a quick gauge, an instant way for us to share and seek validation for our experiences. But we should remember, it’s a limited tool and not a substitute for real, textured human experiences.
For me, the intriguing part is the societal behavior this encourages. When almost everything is rated, what are the implications on our collective psyche? Do we become more critical or judgmental? Or perhaps it fosters a more competitive landscape where only the ‘best’ experiences or services are sought after, leaving behind a graveyard of three-star worlds that might be equally enriching.
The Anthropocene Reviewed : NPR
Read more at: The Strangely Beautiful Experience of Google Reviews - Longreads
You may also be interested in: Looking at amazon reviews for health journals