Author
|
Topic: public ratings system (Read 674 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.49
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
public ratings system
« on: 2003-08-17 23:36:20 » |
 |
on the polls this question seemed a little unclear to me.
"Should everyone be able to see all the ratings in the reputation system?"
I favor everyone being able to see the collective ratings results for each individual, but shouldn't be able to see the ratings entered by each individual for others. In otherwords the people voting would have the privacy of their own votes on other people, but everyone would be able to see the collective results on each individual. This matches IRL reputation as it is generally a publicly available quality. Also protecting the privacy of the voter allows for more honest results. Because this didn't sound like "all the ratings" to me, I voted "no". If I have misunderstood this, I may change my vote.
-Jake
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.49
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:public ratings system
« Reply #1 on: 2003-08-18 00:56:15 » |
|
A really good question.
"Yes" is the status quo. Being able to see everyone's ratings. This has the upside that it allows people to establish the veracity of claims for support and even more significant, it provides the ability for newcomers to establish how much attention to pay to people. It also allows you to measure changing perceptions of your behaviour over time.
The down side is that it leads to continuous attempted (futile) manipulation of the pecking order*, and perhaps the temptation to form an orthodoxy where the words of the leadership are taken as being of more weight in matters unrelated to list (and board and IRC etc) protocol.
"No" would hide all the ratings except your own. This would retain the feedback mechanism, but would lose the other benefits. However, it would also dispose of the issue of a pecking order.
So I think that you meant to vote "Yes".
Kind Regards
Hermit
*As the number of "reputable" members increases, so the ability of any one member to alter the "pecking order" by fine tuning their voting decreases. The correct approach to such a system as we have implemented is to simply rate the people you are evaluating as honestly as you can. This will automatically create a list which reflects an accurate average reading of all the members of the "rateable" community.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
