Re: pseudonyms & list health
At 6:13 AM 9/4/95, Futplex wrote:
Deranged Mutant writes:
My worry is about abuse. One would prefer to save endorsements and find a way to remove thumbs-downs... also how to prevent one from overdoing a thumbs-up or -down certification for a person (either to inflate or de- flate a reputation).
A few nuisance lawsuits from people who were given thumbs-downs might do the trick, as with employment recommendations in the U.S. :[
A good point that deserves further comment. Employers have taken to _saying nothing_ about past employees, for fear of lawsuits by disgruntled job seekers. So much for free speech, courtesy of the American legal system. But as we can't changed the litigious nature of American society (and maybe European society--I don't know), the emphasis ought to be on digital systems and reputations by pseudonyms. Hal's comment about transferring credentials is one approach. Sort of an automated version of "Pr0duct Cypher says the work of Sue D'Nim is good." At this point, not enough pseudonymns to make it very worthwhile, but someday...
ObTim: As in other reputation markets, some people will spread their blessings more liberally than others. They do this at the risk of diluting the worth of each credential granted. It all comes out in the wash.
A reviewer named Susan Granger, for example, is known to me as a person who routinely lauds lousy movies. Thus it's simple for me to ignore her positive recommendations (I've yet to see a negative review from her). In fact, when I observe that a new film prominently features her seal of approval in its advertising, I take that fact as an indication of the lack of praise from more discriminating reviewers. So a nominal "positive" credential may be interpreted as an implicit negative credential, depending upon context.
Another good point. I always think: "Ah, they couldn't get either Siskel or Ebert to endorse it." As Futplex notes, endorsements by second- or third-tier endorsers are often a _negative_ endorsement. --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Tim wrote:
At 6:13 AM 9/4/95, Futplex wrote:
Deranged Mutant writes:
My worry is about abuse. One would prefer to save endorsements and find a way to remove thumbs-downs... also how to prevent one from overdoing a thumbs-up or -down certification for a person (either to inflate or de- flate a reputation).
A few nuisance lawsuits from people who were given thumbs-downs might do the trick, as with employment recommendations in the U.S. :[
A good point that deserves further comment. Employers have taken to _saying nothing_ about past employees, for fear of lawsuits by disgruntled job seekers. So much for free speech, courtesy of the American legal system.
As a somehow related note, my experience with some past jobs is that in some circumstances the employee turnover rate is high enough that a manager will give a neutral or good rating simply because they have no experience with a previous employee who clearly did not deserve a good rating. Something similar could happen with mailing lists... hardly anyone can remember when a 'newbie' posted to a list a few years ago, irregardless of whether a person is still worth a certain rating after a time. Then again, with a lot of material being archived, it might be easier in some circumstances to review a person's contributions to a list rather than rely on a rating... or maybe send a trusted rater to research an author on the 'net for you rather than maintain a huge database of ratings that will need some form of interpretation. Then again, (as Tim and others noted) there's alws killfiles and manual glossing over of threads, etc.
But as we can't changed the litigious nature of American society (and maybe European society--I don't know), the emphasis ought to be on digital systems and reputations by pseudonyms.
Litigating in a society of pseudonyms may have it's own problems anyway... (imagining suing a trusted friend of yours who prefers to give you much needed crticisms through a pseudonym so as to protect the friendship... on example off the top of my head)... How can a 'nym be held legally accountable as a non-'nym? -Rob
participants (2)
-
Deranged Mutant -
tcmay＠got.net