From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 95 23:14:09 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: pseudonyms & list health
In-Reply-To: <199509040505.BAA05115@csws5.ic.sunysb.edu>
Message-ID: <9509040614.AA01461@cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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. :[

> In terms of persons, I see this more as an electronic equivalent of medals
> awards, or those nifty little smiley stickers my second grade teacher used
> to give.  After a while they become meaningless.

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.

OTOH, if I only give digital thumbs-up to a couple of people on the list,
those who consider me a reputable appraiser-of-cpunks should find the
information relatively useful. I'm sure I can manage to be a harsher critic
than your 2nd-grade teacher :}  Using e.g. a single 1-10 scale would be
highly practical for such purposes, IMHO.

-Futplex