

Building Reputation Systems (wiki for new O'Reilly book) - thetable
http://www.buildingreputation.com/doku.php

======
cianestro
I'm not convinced reputation systems are a good thing. 1) only sites that need
a community identity can benefit from such a system, 2) the system allows for
arbitrary prejudice, and 3) its utilization is extraneous for building trust
and admiration among the real contributors (the users so influential they get
referred to by their actual names).

Craigslist is what it is because of its anonymity. On Amazon I usually only
buy from sellers with plus 98% approval rating, but I only do so arbitrarily
and rarely read customer reviews. I feel a simple comment system, like they
have implemented to gauge the actual product itself, would be appropriate; if
someone gets scammed that person can write about the experience, conversely,
if one's expectations are exceeded then that person can say so as well. Both
ways I'm comparing are still subject to slander but value systems distort
transparency in the outlier data where one bad comment can destroy a newbie
and one bad but genuine rating on a purposed sketchy veteran will just be
another notch on his belt.

It's sad but since I only have 9 karma points on HN I doubt anyone will
comment on this, and if so only to be ironical. Just like school or any value
system, its constituents are greatly subject to conflicts of interest that may
coerce corruptive and erosive behavior. In communities where karma is
recognized as superficial (like HN, we're all programmers mostly--hopefully
the issue is taken lightly) points are a fine means for getting quick feedback
and are seemingly harmless. But when you slap that point sticker on your
username things turn ugly; it's just too easy to misjudge someone based on
this criteria alone instead of empirically. This especially holds true for
newcomers and passersby, no?

Kuler is a perfect example of a community done right. The community is this
perfect size and the most involved and valuable contributors encourage, if not
mentor, newcomers who show genuine interest in the site. The Kuler community
has a superficial reputation system, meaning there is no explicit currency or
status. Users on the site build relationships, not status, and I feel
personally responsible for the content I produce there. It's a positive
feedback loop running mostly on respect at Kuler, not a negative one. Points
should be associated to the content of a user and not the user itself as a
means of recognizing quality--isn't the basis of this idea what that whole
crazy internet thing was about back in the 90's?

Some might claim that token economies encourage responsibility but I say they
overwhelmingly generate irresponsibility (if done mediocrely or less) as their
superficiality moves ever closer to reality. Maybe the times have corrupted my
tongue but these electronic reputation systems are increasingly turning into
viable currency that some are willing to exchange real money to possess. If
you decide on incorporating a token economy into a community please make sure
the currency is distributed and controlled by the users. I not sure if anyone
else out there does this but every time I use craigslist I quietly mutter
under my breath "Thank you Craig for keeping it simple."

~~~
FRandallFarmer
Did you read any of the linked site? The entire draft of the book is online
for free.

There is much more to reputations systems than just user karma. Do you use any
search engine?

