Timwi wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
3. People might be incentivized to create sham
accounts just to give
themselves positive feedback.
Additionally, I think, people might be incentivised to create sham
accounts just to give negative feedback to someone else.
Yes, that's a good point. We certainly don't want there to be an
incentive for people to make multiple accounts.
As has already been said, eBay doesn't have this
problem because in
order to leave feedback you have to enter a transaction with the other
user. Edits don't make a good analogy because it's not a transaction
between two users who can then rate each other.
Right, I agree that edits are not a good analogy to transactions. We
don't really have anything quite like a transaction.
Now, I agree that having just "thumbs up",
"thumbs down" and "neutral"
makes the system pretty simple. But it's not very flexible. Example:
Suppose I think someone is a really good contributor in the sense of the
content they deliver, but a rather lousy person to discuss things with.
I would want to be able to weigh these concerns against each other.
What I'm proposing is the ability to give users a rating from 0 to 10,
or perhaps from -5 to 5. That would give me eleven levels at which to
rate people. Every user would then have a weighted average rating,
weighted by the rating of the raters.
I could envision something on every User page:
+--------------------------------------+
| User rating: 4.7 |
| Rate this user: [ 5 (very good) |v] |
+--------------------------------------+
I'm not sure what additional levels of gradation add, though, not
really. It all comes out in the wash.
--Jimbo