Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

pcplantdb - Re: [pcplantdb] attributes - ratings/feedback

pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: pcplantdb

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: John Schinnerer <john@eco-living.net>
  • To: pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [pcplantdb] attributes - ratings/feedback
  • Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:25:55 +0000

Aloha

Just like an
internet search engine the information rated as most helpful/correct
will float to the top
Information that is marked as helpful/correct

Helpful is one attribute, which can be rated empirically/experientially.
"A said this and I tried it and it helped me with situation B."

I don't think "correct" is a useful attribte, unless it means the same as "helpful."

Correct for whom, when?

... Having a high reputation has
two advantages: 1) Information they post will automatically be given a
higher rank than lower rated authors.

People who know a lot about X but little about Y will get a high rep on X and then post complete BS about Y and their BS about Y will be given the same veracity as their good info about X.
Of course if people call them on it then it will self-correct...which leads to:

2) Authors with a high
reputation will have a bigger impact on the rating of information they
moderate.

Same basic problem as above.
Maybe worse, because instead of just having a leg up on posting bad info and having it taken for good, they have a greater ability to diss others' good info than those others might have to diss their bad info.

I would want at least this side of it (rating others) completely even as to influence - one being, one vote.

Better yet, equal all around, with cumulative feedback info letting people decide for themselves who they think they ought to trust more, or less.

This works on eBay - if I want to better judge the veracity of X's comment about Y, I (need to) go check out others' comments on X. X doesn't get more than one vote (comment) in complaining about or praising Y just because X has sold a million items with 99.5% positive feedback.

I can go see that X has sold a million items with 99.5% positive feedback, and I can read the handful of negative feedbacks and see if they're just cranks with a chip on their shoulder or perennial malcontents or whatever or if they actually have what looks like a legit beef. Even if they do, odds are good that with 99.5% of a million, X will do right by me if I bid on his stuff.

In short, I don't support automating the human decision-making at this level. Feedback with brief comment, one person, one vote, and let people sift through feedback summaries and form their own mental rankings.

Google is only indexing web sites by perceived popularity. We are talking about indexing human beings in a similar way and I don't support that; IMO it's not appropriate.

Google has some kind of mechanisms (so they claim) to keep a handful of sites from shutting out everything else.
We need similar or we'll soon have a monoculture of opinions and information.


--

John Schinnerer - MA, Whole Systems Design
------------------------------------------
- Eco-Living -
Whole Systems Design Services
People - Place - Learning - Integration
john@eco-living.net
http://eco-living.net




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page