RE: self-ratings vs. market ratings

[Blanc Weber <blancw@MICROSOFT.com>]

>From: 	Vladimir Z. Nuri
>
>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.
...............................................................

The fact that I, like others, am "free to assume" any connotation means
that there easily can exist confusion surrounding the definitions of
these terms, and that this can then create controversy in discussions
over what anyone means when they make references to them.

Those who intend to apply these concepts must determine what they think
they are doing (rating content, or establishing someone's reputation?)
and must communicate it to others clearly so as to be definitely
understood, else risk further compounding of confusion.

The word & the concept of "reputation" has been in use for much longer
than "rating".   In the most recent applications of the term "rating",
the idea has evolved to include such things as electronic web page
content.   It refers to a deliberate, conscious intent to establish a
measure, an estimate, or evaluation, of something that an individual or
group presents (information) or provides (service).   The rating is
intentionally applied and is intended to be used for communicating to
those who are seeking this specific kind of information, where a
reputation evolves "on its own", so to speak, as a coincidence of being
generally known.

"Reputation" is more a passive reference to the past, where "rating"  is
actively in regard of a present condition (with future expectations).

[These are just comments I have on this subject; I myself don't pay much
attention to ratings, as my own measures of things & people tend to be
quite different from most, and therefore not very useful for my
purposes.  So that's all I have to say about it, "Vlad".]

    ..
Blanc

>