It started like any usual morning.

We had just released a new version of our app. Nothing out of the ordinary. But within hours, our feeds on LinkedIn and Instagram were flooded.

People weren’t just noticing the update — they were talking about it.

At the center of it all was a small experiment:
Showing users how many captains had rejected their ride request.

​

The Internet Reacted — Fast

Very quickly, opinions split into two camps:

• One side: “This is useful. At least now I know what’s happening.”

• The other: “Why would you show something so negative?”

Some found it transparent. Others found it harsh.

And honestly — both reactions were valid.

​

What We Saw Internally

While the debate played out publicly, our internal data told a clear story:

👉 More clarity = more patience
👉More patience = better ride completion

This reinforced something we’ve always believed:
Uncertainty creates anxiety. Clarity builds trust.

​

The Problem We Were Solving

We’re a service marketplace.

For both the customer and the captain, the Job To Be Done is simple:
Make the ride happen.

But the “searching for a ride” screen was a black box.

When we spoke to users on the ground, we heard things like:

• “Is the app even working?”

• “Are drivers not seeing my request?”

• “Why is this taking so long?”

Most users didn’t fully understand how marketplace dynamics work — supply, demand, distance, pricing — and frankly, they didn’t want a lecture.

They just wanted reassurance.

​

The Insight That Changed Everything

Different users have different levels of patience.

But more importantly:
👉 Users wanted some control over the situation.

And control comes from one thing:
Information.

​

Our Approach: Give Users Power Through Transparency

We asked ourselves:

How might we reduce anxiety and give users power to get rider faster during the wait?

Our answer:

• Show what’s actually happening

• Give them options to act (like adding a tip to increase chances)

Simple in theory. Complex in execution.

​

The Hardest Decision: What Should We Say?

Transparency isn’t just about data.
It’s about how you communicate it.

We tested three tones:

• Soft nudge (gentle wording)

• Medium nudge

• Hard nudge (“Rejected”)
   

And here’s what surprised us:

👉 The hard nudge performed the best

• Users waited longer

• Ride completion improved
  
  
   

So… Why Did “Rejected” Work?

“Rejected” is a strong word.

As designers and product thinkers, we often assume:

Strong negative words = bad experience

But reality is more nuanced.

• Some users prefer directness over ambiguity

• Clear signals reduce overthinking

• Knowing what’s happening reduces frustration
   

What We Learned

1. Clarity beats comfort (sometimes)
   Sugarcoating can increase confusion.

2. Users are more resilient than we think
   Not every negative word leads to a negative experience.

3. You won’t learn without pushing extremes
   Testing the “hard edge” helps understand the full spectrum.

4. Transparency builds trust — even when it’s uncomfortable
    

Where We Go From Here

Does this mean “Rejected” is final?

Not necessarily.

We’re continuing to refine the language — to find the right balance between:

• Honesty

• Empathy

• Actionability

Because content isn’t just words.
It’s experience.

​

Closing Thought

This feature wasn’t about calling out rejection. It was about reinforcing our core belief: Make the ride happen. Even if that means having uncomfortable conversations with users — and sometimes, the internet.