Some thoughts about reputation

Reputation is a big deal on the internet. How do we build trust with people we have never met, let alone those who may not be who they say they are? This is something that people have been trying to figure out since the internet began, and I wonder if it’s even possible by using algorithms and tracking behavior, or if there will always be a loophole that people can game. I think that real trust requires an ongoing relationship, and can’t be measured accurately using technology. With that in mind, my interest in reputation is more about identifying the behavior that happens in face to face interactions, and using that reputation to build value within an alternative currency. I am looking into how we can measure the good deeds that we do, and benefit from them in more ways than simply building a relationship with one person, or one organization. With a currency backed by reputation, we can encourage specific behavior, which could be altruism, creativity, or collaboration, or whatever we want to reward.

Reputation is DOMAIN SPECIFIC
Meaning trust cannot be generally assigned to a person, instead it must be assigned to an aspect of a person.
For example: Bob is a DJ. Bob is a scientist. Bob is a neighbor. Each of those aspects of Bob requires a separate reputation. For example, Bob may be a great DJ, but with all that practice he is always keeping his neighbors up at night with his loud music. Just because he has a good reputation as a DJ, that does not mean he would make a good neighbor.

The value of someone’s opinion depends on their reputation
On the review website yelp.com, the opinions of the reviewers who post frequently and honestly are more valued than those who don’t. On the nerd news site Slashdot, the value (and therefore visibility) of a contributors post is based on their reputation and quality.
The word of someone with a good reputation has huge value. When authors write books, they put testimonials from other famous authors or cultural figures on the cover to convince you of its value. When a new tenant moves into an apartment, they give the landlord a references- if that reference is from a lawyer or a doctor it is more valuable that if it’s from your buddy who hangs out on the corner. If you have a good reputation, you can pass that value on by vouching for people because your voice is trusted.

Reputation depends on WHO’S ASKING
In life, your relationships and connections affect your opinion of people. If I can rely on Sarah and Sarah trusts John, then I can assume I can trust John. This seems like a very simple mechanism, but it is fraught with complications. How well does Sarah know John? How well do I know Sarah? Maybe Sarah and John had a falling out but doesn’t like to talk about it. What if Sarah just isn’t being honest about how she feels about John?

Anonymity vs Transparency
We live in a culture that doesn’t support the giving and receiving of honest feedback. People just don’t like to talk badly about people, so even if Sarah doesn’t actually trust John, would she feel safe to say that openly? Measuring reputation anonymously would mean that people could be real without any fear of repercussions . But sites like yelp.com have proved that when you give people an anonymous soapbox it brings out the worst in them. With a transparent system where everyone’s reputation and opinions of each other are visible, rather than anonymous backstabbing, people are accountable for their actions and if they have a negative opinion about something (or someone), it is the beginning of a conversation which could lead to resolving the dispute or misunderstanding.