Why don't any markets just use a thumbs up/down system of rating vendors?

Let's be honest, the current system for rating a vendor is a joke.

It's either you got the product and left 5/5, contacted the vendor to "make it right" and left a 5/5, or you got scammed and leave a 0/5. Trying to leave anything inbetween results in getting PMs from vendors who essentially blackmail you into leaving 5/5 by holding your buyer rating hostage. The 5 point system really instills a false sense of security when everyone has pretty much the same rating +- .002.

I feel like this could be solved with a simple good transaction/bad transaction rating system. IMO, it would look a lot better if you had 2000 thumbs up/upvotes/whatever vs 5/5 (2000 reviews) Maybe I'm over simplifying it, but I'd love to hear what you think.


Comments


[3 Points] BisousBisous23:

Doesn't ME have something similar to that?


[2 Points] yalldontknowjack:

I wish it was at 10/10. This way you could more accurately judge your experience. Because like you said, it's either 5/5 "I got it" or it's a 0/5 "Scammer". There is no room to take off points. Can you take 20% off because it didn't ship on time? or because they have poor customer service? No. This is why full, honest reviews on market forums, reddit and grams are so important.


[1 Points] None:

I don't see how that would be any better than the 5/5 system honestly. I agree that it has problems but how exactly would a thumbs up/down system improve things? The false sense of security would still be there because it would be a bunch of thumbs up rather than 5/5 ratings.


[1 Points] Theeconomist1:

I believe a binary/trinary is a better system. Now, I don't think it'll necessarily "improve" market reviews, but let's be honest, scores are binary anyway. They are 0/1 or 5's. 95% of reviews fall in those scores. So a sliding scale is useless.


[1 Points] 2005C:

Sellers should not be holding buyer feedback hostage, that is just shit. Eventually no ratings will be honest and accurate.