I ran into this issue before when building a magic link system. Seems Microsoft visits the link to check for risks, which in turn nullifies that link before it hits your inbox. Fun times.
I wonder if they record less than 5 stars if the user doesn't submit the text box, or if their research says everyone has great quality because they close/decline to provide feedback.
Qualitative research is finicky like that. What I’ve seen happen more often is a user is frustrated yet professional enough in some moment to actually provide useful feedback, but they bail when the survey has one too many questions. UXR teams like to organize questions and answers into nice little spreadsheets that ladder back to KPIs, but that’s not how an emotional person with honest criticism wants to share it. So they bail and you lose that moment. I like to do stars or thumb up/down as a pulse check, then a textbox to spill your guts. More work for me, but useful results more often.
The thread is fishing for some kind of moral failure, but if it's the company gathering those opinions, without any obligation, for its own use, it's not hostile behavior to manipulate the data.
It's just stupid.
(There may be, of course, some behavior that is hostile to the company done by people inside it. But it's not hostile to you. Also, one can argue that "stupid" is worse.)
Congrats on the launch, it’s hard work getting to this point. But as others have pointed out, this feels like a solution in search of a problem. The value props just aren’t there to start recommending this service to my family and friends, when more mature and trusted solutions already exist.
I think they were trying to convey the idea that not all very qualified candidates would even consider a contract-to-hire option. I know I wouldn't. That’s an unnecessary risk for me to take.
https://lifehacker.com/heres-why-everyone-already-has-your-n...