RE: self-ratings vs. market ratings

>From: 	Vladimir Z. Nuri (in response to Tim May)
>
>hmmmmmmmm, I seem to recall earlier letters in which you advocated 
>a market-type rating system in which services could rate things,
>in the way that stocks are now rated, doctors/lawyers
>could be rated, etc.-- let a thousand ratings services bloom.
>(or maybe we were talking about reputations. in my mind, they are
>mostly interchangeable--hence my interest in "rating" systems).
.....................................................................

In consideration of the difference between "ratings" and "reputation":

I think of a rating as something which is attached to something
"pre-knowledge", whereas a reputation is something which develops over
time & based upon informed knowledge ("after-knowledge").

A rating is applied to something (a service or whatever) by only those
few individuals who are acquainted with what they are rating.

A reputation is accumulated by the impressions made upon larger numbers
of individuals - a general population not necessarily employed to
collect these impressions - but who have nevertheless sufficient
exposure to and acquaintanceship with the person/service/etc. to make an
informed conclusion about it.  

A rating can make a statement on what something "is" or is expected to
be (eg, general in content vs explicitly sexual), where a reputation
reflects on past behavior.

    ..
Blanc

BW:
>I think of a rating as something which is attached to something
>"pre-knowledge", whereas a reputation is something which develops over
>time & based upon informed knowledge ("after-knowledge").

you are free to assume any connotation you like. but in my view
they are pretty much interchangeable. they are both "meta
information"-- information about other things or information.

a credit rating is in fact a "credit reputation"-- it is a built
up credit history over time. maybe you would prefer the term
"credit reputation"?

>A rating is applied to something (a service or whatever) by only those
>few individuals who are acquainted with what they are rating.
>
>A reputation is accumulated by the impressions made upon larger numbers
>of individuals - a general population not necessarily employed to
>collect these impressions - but who have nevertheless sufficient
>exposure to and acquaintanceship with the person/service/etc. to make an
>informed conclusion about it.  
>
>A rating can make a statement on what something "is" or is expected to
>be (eg, general in content vs explicitly sexual), where a reputation
>reflects on past behavior.

oh, ok, a reputation would refer to a person, and a rating might
refer to a thing. a valid distinction, but not necessary for a 
system that is purely electronic. people and things could be 
rated interchangeably. but of course in the "people" case you 
are going to get a lot more political fire. issues like libel
and defamation come up. it will be interesting to see how they
are resolved.

again, I suspect in the future the distinctions you refer to
are going to blur. there will just be ratings of all kinds of
things, including people. some ratings will be based on 
expert opinions, some will be based ona consensus of opinions
measured somehow ("reputation"), some will be purely objective
such as "score on last driving exam", etc.

of course all kinds of nasty issues like privacy etc. rear their
head. I don't claim to have an answer or clearcut guidelines
for all this.

> In consideration of the difference between "ratings" and "reputation":
> 
> I think of a rating as something which is attached to something
> "pre-knowledge", whereas a reputation is something which develops over
> time & based upon informed knowledge ("after-knowledge").

Perhaps a `rating' is discrete, applied to a specific instance (a web
page, a graphic image, a film), while a `reputation' could crudely be
compiled by summing one's ratings?  (I know this is very flawed, but it
could be a starting point for perspective.)

Seth
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth I. Rich - seth@hygnet.com            "Info-Puritan elitist crapola!!"
Systems Administrator / Webmaster, HYGNet             (pbeilard@direct.ca)
Rabbits on walls, no problem.