From: mccoy@communities.com (Jim McCoy)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 37e1dfcffc70a811c9a63709cb2ff6079e6d8dbbfadac2e35f71da47fa0e1394
Message ID: <v02140b00ae542bed2ead@[205.162.51.35]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-05 08:40:38 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:40:38 +0800
From: mccoy@communities.com (Jim McCoy)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:40:38 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Reputations
Message-ID: <v02140b00ae542bed2ead@[205.162.51.35]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Greg Burk writes:
> Too little incentive to shoot for the heights:
>
> Suppose you judge that you've accumulated twice as much "reputation
> capital" as Joe. How do you get twice as much payoff? It seems to me
> that above the threshhold of credibility, minor side issues make more
> difference than your two-fold "reputation capital" differential.
Go read Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card (a good book to read anyway :)
and examine the nature of the computer network "discussion groups" he talks
about: a classic example of reputation markets in many-to-many discussions.
With the proper tools someone with twice the reputation capital in a
particular category as another will have a greater chance of what they say
not being filtered out as noise.
> As an "asset", it is extremely non-liquid:
>
> How exactly would you "convert" your reputation into other capital?
> Would you accept bribes and tell lies? Seems to me you would only get a
> one-shot "conversion" and it couldn't possibly hope to equal your
> investment.
Tell that to Walter Cronkite, Siskel & Ebert, Moody's and others who have
converted reputation capital into large piles of money. Time is an asset
that has a monetary value to most people, and they are willing to spend money
to hear the opinions of sources which they feel have a high reputation in
a particular area rather than spending the time necessary to do the research
and investigation themselves.
> So I think the latter part of the analysis is wishful thinking, or at
> least restricted to a small subset of subject-matter.
No, I think that you just don't understand the mechanics of reputations and
how they interact with the most important resource in most people's lives:
time. Instead of thinking of "reputation" look at it from the other end and
consider the "attention marketplace." Right now reputation markets have a
limited presence on the internet (mostly through killfiles) because the tools
required are not integreated into the tools used to browse the information.
In time this will change.
jim
Return to September 1996
Return to “mccoy@communities.com (Jim McCoy)”
1996-09-05 (Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:40:38 +0800) - Re: Reputations - mccoy@communities.com (Jim McCoy)