[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Reputations

[email protected] (Jim McCoy) writes:
> Greg Burk writes:
> > Too little incentive to shoot for the heights:
> >
> > Suppose you judge that you've accumulated twice as much "reputation
> > capital" as Joe. How do you get twice as much payoff? It seems to me
> > that above the threshhold of credibility, minor side issues make more
> > difference than your two-fold "reputation capital" differential.
> Go read Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card (a good book to read anyway :)
> and examine the nature of the computer network "discussion groups" he talks
> about: a classic example of reputation markets in many-to-many discussions.
> With the proper tools someone with twice the reputation capital in a
> particular category as another will have a greater chance of what they say
> not being filtered out as noise.
I have read it, a long time ago. Frankly, it's a spectacularly bad
example. He writes of the two child-protagonists gaining reputations as
great philosophers on a sort of Usenet. (At the time I believe OSC was a
member of Delphi, UNCLEORSON)
Look around on the real Usenet. OSC could not have been more wrong.
> > As an "asset", it is extremely non-liquid:
> >
> > How exactly would you "convert" your reputation into other capital?
> > Would you accept bribes and tell lies? Seems to me you would only get a
> > one-shot "conversion" and it couldn't possibly hope to equal your
> > investment.
> Tell that to Walter Cronkite, Siskel & Ebert, Moody's and others who have
> converted reputation capital into large piles of money.  Time is an asset
> that has a monetary value to most people, and they are willing to spend money
You don't seem to realize you are actually including at least one major
example of a counterfeit reputation here.
I speak of Siskel & Ebert, whom I have caught at least once giving a
strikingly dishonest review. I had seen the movie (See You In The
Morning) on opening day, before they reviewed it. It stunk. After the
credits rolled, the audience walked out in sullen silence, unable to
believe they had spent money to see it. Nobody in the entire audience
gave any sign of liking any part of the thing even a little bit. Whereas
they had been talkative and somewhat excited before it started. A few
days later, I saw S&E's review. One of them (Siskel, I think) raved and
raved about it. Perhaps he was the only person in the country who liked
it, but I don't believe that. He gave it a lengthy, raving thumbs-up.
Then the other (Ebert, I think) said "Well, I didn't like it as much as
you did", thumbs down, and *stopped*.
Conclusion: They knew it stunk, but for some reason I won't speculate on
they wanted to say they liked it so they misreported it, and covered
their butts with a review that would look mixed later but sound like a
rave now. I see a counterfeit reputation.
> No, I think that you just don't understand the mechanics of reputations and
> how they interact with the most important resource in most people's lives:
> time.
I'm tempted to tit-for-tat, but I will not refute your points by telling
you you just don't understand.
> time.  Instead of thinking of "reputation" look at it from the other end and
> consider the "attention marketplace."
Fine, but resolving good vs counterfeit reputations takes time too.
> Right now reputation markets have a
> limited presence on the internet (mostly through killfiles) because the tools
> required are not integreated into the tools used to browse the information.
> In time this will change.
How? I ask for something more specific than In The Future Everything
Will Be Done Right.
Version: 2.6.1