488

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] [email protected] 180 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

i see this all the time with software designed by americans. on an old job we used a tool called "officevibe" where you'd enter your current impression of your role and workplace once a month. you got some random questions to answer on a 10-degree scale.

when we were presented with the result the stats were terrible because the scale was weighted so that everything below 7 was counted as negative. we were all just answering 5 for "it's okay", 3-4 for "could use improvement", and 6-7 for "better than expected". there had never been a 10 in the stats, and the software took that as "this place sucks".

like, of course you downvote a bad response. you're supposed to help the model get better, right?

[+] [email protected] 106 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

[deleted]

[-] [email protected] 50 points 3 weeks ago

That happens in Google maps too. A 4 star restaurant is not good. But in Japan, 3 star is the norm, and 5 means exceptionally good.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

It makes more sense with restaurant reviews. The business environment is so intensely competitive that any restaurant actually deserving of 1-2 stars would be much more likely to eventually go out of business.

So, over a long enough period of time, you'd wind up with mostly 3-5 star places, with some exceptions existing for restaurants that can survive without the benefit of repeat customers. (tourist trap places, places operated as some kind of money laundering operation, etc)

[-] [email protected] 32 points 3 weeks ago

I once got a call from a telecom marketing department because I rated a customer service agent with a 9 out of 10. When I told them it was not for anything the agent did, just that the store the support was in was extremely difficult to find, the caller got a bit aggressive. Like they expected me to shit talk this poor lady who had been so nice to me, just hard to find, and it was all corpo's fault. The store wasn't properly branded and signaled. She couldn't take any comment that was negative on the company, just on the employee. So I told her how ridiculously stupid that system was. That I wanted to change my score to a perfect ten, comment, the best employee this company has, even better than the CEO. The caller got obviously upset. Told her to write down that if they ever call me again I will immediately cancel my contract. She went with, is there anything else I could help you with? Which is call center code for "I want to hang up".

[+] [email protected] -19 points 3 weeks ago

I once worked for a call center. Customers like you who rate an agent based on things the agent has no control over are the worst. Guaranteed they took employment action on them.

[-] [email protected] 20 points 3 weeks ago

Then they should ask that. The question was redacted as a blanket statement for the entire support experience, which was really good overall. Everything else I rated a 10, including the quality of the attention received. We don't need to make this excuses for bad management practices.

[+] [email protected] -12 points 3 weeks ago

I don't know how the survey question was phrased, only how you wrote your comment, which indicated you rated the agent poorly, not the entire support experience.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago

9 out of 10 is not poorly. And that is exactly the core of the comment. They saw a 9 and acted as if I was beaten with a bat and verbally abused by this poor lady. This perception is their problem, they are completely out of touch with reality.

[-] [email protected] -3 points 3 weeks ago

I simultaneously disagree with them considering a 9 a failure and your rating the agent less because of something outside of their control.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

but as a customer i can't be expected to know that a less-than-stellar review of my customer service experience (which i only contact if i already have issues and therefore am predisposed to be irritated at) will reflect badly on the person who fielded my call unless they explicitly tell me that beforehand, which they won't because that's not information that the customers need and they don't really want to be known for treating their personnel badly.

i may have rated the experience a 9 because the phone tree to get to a human was confusing, or because the hold music was shit, or because the agent had to look things up in the company's slow-ass system so i had to wait. there are a million ways to have a bad time when calling customer service, and if you ask me to rate the experience with one number i would never in a million years give it a 10 unless everything is solved the instant i call.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago

I hear you on that, and your position makes much more sense now that you've explained their survey wasn't asking the questions well or you misinterpreted them.

Mine had portions for my performance and the overall company's performance separately, but I still received poor ratings (and written comments) for actions other people took that I had no control over, like giving your new dentist a bad rating because you broke a tooth skateboarding before your first visit with them.

"How are your teeth doing?" "Bad."

Versus

"How was your dentist appointment today?" "Good" + "What is your dental history?" "Bad."

[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

now, i'm not the guy that had the original customer service experience you were mad at but that's my experience with them. whenever they're split up i rate the "agent performance" at 100% and everything else at whatever i felt they deserved, because if there's one job that does not deserve more hate its customer service phone jockeys.

but yeah, usually the questions are entirely unfit. our office review thing offered stuff like "i can contribute to my team to further the company's goals". it was a consultancy working on-site with customers. we didn't have teams.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Hey man, listen. Call centers suck. I worked at a call center, and it really really sucked. I'd be the first to empathize with workers locked up in call centers.

But this wasn't even about a call center. It was a support experience survey for going to a physical store that offers support as one of the many things they sell and offer there. The place is not owned by the telecom company, they aren't their employees.

The problem, again, is that the people designing, sending, collecting and overreacting to the support survey probably weren't ever anywhere close to a remotely similar place. Which just shows how utterly useless and pointless the whole exercise is and how it is actually counterproductive to be honest on these corpo surveys.

[-] [email protected] 30 points 3 weeks ago

Recently, saw some survey that explicitly said 1-7 is "poor", 7-8 is "OK", and 9-10 is "great". Wild, not sure what the point of the scale is then.

Same with book ratings. Looking at StoryGraph, the average ratings I see is somewhere between 3.5 and 4.5. While I would rate a decent book a 3.

Born in Eastern Europe, live in the US, maybe that's why.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago

I wonder if it's like the grading system we use in school? <60% is F for fail, 60% to <70% is D which depending on the class can be barely passing or barely failing. >=70% would be A, B, and C grades which are all usually passing, and A in particular means doing extremely well or perfect (>=90%). I just noticed that that rating scale kind of lines up with the typical American grading scale, maybe that's just a coincidence

[-] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago

most countries i know mark <50% as a failing grade

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

i was unaware most countries still use this terrible score system at all

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Apples and watermelons. The all-time highest major league batting average is only .371, nowhere near .500 which would correspond to 50% of the max possible.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago

i have no idea what that means or why it's relevant.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I believe you. On a rating scale of 0-10 a value of 5 doesn't usually represent a failure or anything negative, it's usually a middle concept such as "neither like nor dislike". Batting average is another example where 50% isn't a "failing grade". Hope that helps clear it up for you.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

no i mean i don't know what a "batting average" is or why it's apples to oranges to compare it to test scores.

i'm assuming you mean that comparing a pure gaussian distribution to a weighted system is unproductive?

[-] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago

From the looks of it, what they're calculating is a net promoter score. The idea is that, in some context, what you actually want to know is whether your target audience would be willing to actually promote your business to their friends and family or not.

It's very common in retail and other competitive markets, because a customer that had an "okay" experience could still go to a competitor, so only customers who had a great experience (7+ out of ten) are actually loyal, returning clients.

Don't know if that's the best method to gather impressions on workplace environment though, I don't think many people would consider their workplace "amazing"

[-] [email protected] 82 points 3 weeks ago

[-] [email protected] 56 points 3 weeks ago

"objective distribution" yeah right

[-] [email protected] 26 points 3 weeks ago

and the main problem with gpt are the em-dashes

[-] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, nothing about the blatant hallucinations to even basic questions, the dashes are the major problem

[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

They can fix the styling, they cant fix the hallucinations.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

should look more like a Boltzmann distribution?

[-] [email protected] 48 points 3 weeks ago

“Optimizing for things people love” aka talking to you like an hr team building seminar

It’s frustrating, or maybe it’s a good thing given the tendency for some people to form weird pseudo social relationships with LLMs, to see the evolution of chatgpts language processing

Public chatgpt only had the 3.5, 4, and 4o model but you can play with earlier models like 2 and 3 on huggingface. These were far weirder, often robotic and stilted but sometimes mirroring more natural colloquial English more based on the input

Rather than make something that is authentic and more natural to interact with they instead go for the ultra sanitized HR corporate speak bullshit. Completely bland and inoffensive with constant encouragement and reinforcement to drive engagement that feels so inauthentic (unless you are desperate for connection with anything, I guess). It’s mirrored in other models to some degree, deepseek, llama, etc (I don’t know about grok, fuck going on twitter).

3-5 years until it’s ruined by advertising, tops. If that

[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

i don't understand how people can find it appealing when computers speak like humans, i genuinely find HAL-9000 more appealing.

the ideal computer response style is how it works in star trek voyager

[-] [email protected] 35 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

It's hard to imagine how horrible 'early gpt' versions were at Croatian if they constantly invented words and grammar for much more popular languages, at the time.

[-] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Gpt aside even google translate invents words regularly especially for augmentative languages.

Put google translate on Turkish to English and try something like "teakmezliyorlacaklarasacisinimislaslarin Charlie"

[-] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

👌

[-] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago

There is nothing objective about that 'objective distribution' why would the output automatically center on good?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Because it's the center duh...

I feel like for real this will be the reasoning, since they divided the [0,1] interval into 5 equidistant intervals I think they believe that is what the regular distribution of ratings should look like and then compare that to how much different regions deviate from this norm.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago

Self defense against the IA: tell them they suck until they stop talking to you :D

this post was submitted on 29 May 2025

488 points (99.0% liked)

Science Memes

15278 readers

1591 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]