Skip to content

omidyar.net

Sections
Personal tools
Help
Help index
Help on this page

Community - General

Subsections
Actions

Comment by Arthur Brock (CCAL30)

Author: Arthur Brock (CCAL30) (2066)
Date posted: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:26:15 PDT
Edited: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:45:34 PDT
Comment on: Dealing with difficult people? (0)
Feedback score: 1 (*)

I think automated system behavior is critical for feedback/incentive systems to be effective (such as filtering out of public view to avoid Google Juicing).

Part of the pickle that we're in with the Omidyar feedback system is the lack of transparency of points exchange. This shows up in a few ways:

  • Not everybody realizes that marking a post with pos/neg feedback alters the person's score in like manner.
  • It's possible to game the feedback by burying somebody with pos/neg feedback and others can't directly see that action. In other words, me throwing my bank of -40 at somebody would also likely get me some negative feedback if that kind of vengeful act were transparent to others. It keeps me accountable for my actions (as on eBay).
  • I can create fake accounts (each of which have a bank of 10) and give myself all their points and this would not immediately obvious to everyone.

Many modern targeted currencies take advantage of the power of the open network to police itself exactly by providing such transparency. It helps keep the system in integrity and makes it more difficult to be manipulated.

Automated System Behavior / Signal-to-Noise Ratio

I think it's great how the points and activity levels currently show which groups, threads, workspaces are getting rated the highest. It helps sort the chaff from the wheat, or as I relate to it, it increases the signal-to-noise ratio.

It seems like this may be one of the most valuable long-term benefits of an active feedback system. The Internet is definitely teaching us all the lesson that there is no shortage of information, but rather the challenge is sifting through the bad (or weak) information to find the good (or strongly relevant). A vibrant feedback system in a community can help with this significantly.

For the founders of this site who have watched it evolve, you are probably quite familiar & comfortable with the way it is organized. For a newcomer, there is a lot of information to grasp and understand what is where and who is who. In the long run as knowledge and information accumulates (especially since it is currently not possible to delete workspace pages), the more important this becomes to ensure people are not overwhelmed with data.

With regard to the proposed suggestions I have some thoughts I'd like to throw out there.

  • at a score of -5 for a specific post/workspace, (not a thread but the post) the text is folded, grayed or scribbled and external links become inactive (to prevent google juicing).
  • at a score of -10 for a person, all external links in their profile become inactive (and if possible all their posts/workspaces are "folded" to not be publicly viewable without login).
  • at a score of -25 for a person, their account is "terminated." (I guess I don't see too much purpose in keeping alive an account that can't make posts. How would they ever get their feedback scores back up again?)
[[A later modification... I like the approach of still allowing them to use their inbox, it does give them a way to correct any misunderstandings and resurrect their account.]]

If feedback abuse were transparent, I think this approach would provide a friendly enough way for the community to self-police and remove link abuse and abusers. Without the transparency... we're still subject to the possiblity of gaming.
top back to top of page