Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Does it really make sense to call it "reputation" if you're the only one that can see it?



I think so. You could probably pick something better.

Its more of a Pavlovian reinforcement than reputation. You see what got you lots of points (what people liked) and you're more apt to do that in the future.

By keeping everyone else blind to someone's scores, you don't have as much popularity bias creeping in.


I think it is better to record the facts about people's opinions, than to count reputation points on identities.

For example, as ternary predicates:

1: water is wet

2: identity_1 corroborates 1

3: 2 by_way_of blind_faith

4: identity_2 denies 1

5: 4 by_way_of blind_faith

etc.

You can go as far with this as you want, and the consumer gets to decide what establishes or hurts credibility, and which statements of fact corroborated by what methods and by whom will either count toward or against the credibility of a specific form of statement on a specific topic by a specific set of identities.

For example, you could have predicates describing conflicts of interest, and identify the relevant conflicts of interest by querying for interests in the predicate in question to find what people you trust will say about the interest of individuals and organizations in corroborating or denying a particular claim.

You could also have predicates which show ways in which a statement is controversial in its general form, but is uncontroversial when refined. For example: liquid water can not be wetted with liquid water.


> Does it really make sense to call it "reputation" if you're the only one that can see it?

Sure, if those with higher reputation have their claims promoted above others with poorer reputations.


On HN they call it Karma


You can see a user's karma on HN though, just not on their individual posts.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: