respect

Look are github.com/neyer/respect Or s3.neyer.me/respect-matrix-slides.pdf The solution is to do reputation on a pairwise basis. Recursively Expand the network of people you trust.

Here's a web of trust design that comes with a conflict resolution mechanism. https://github.com/neyer/respect http://s3.neyer.me/respect-matrix-slides.pdf

Here is a proposed solution to mob rule: https://github.com/neyer/dewdrop With a much simpler version of the same concept here https://github.com/neyer/respect I think it's doable.

Why Must there be one "correct" view of the comments on a document? This insistence seems to be what hobbles us. People will disagree on what is or isn't worth reading. That's fine. We should see the problem as sorting comments per viewer, not for all viewers. If 10 of my close friends think a comment is worth reading, then I personally would like to read it. It doesn't matter what the moderator or a quoroum of random internet people think at that point. We should be using the social graph to filter out nonsense, and to surface constant that we are likely to enjoy. If anyone is interested, I've written code to do this here: https://github.com/neyer/respect

It's a lot easier to look for inconsistency than it is to look for incorrectness. Here's a pagerank like reputation system i've built. http://github.com/neyer/respect

It's awesome to read someone else talking about the same thing! I started working on a prototype of language for discourse here: https://github.com/neyer/dewDrop There is a simplified version running a protocol called 'the respect matrix' here: github.com/neyer/respect http://s3.neyer.me/respect-matrix-slides.pdf https://twitter.com/RespectMatrix

> e don't use data-driven approaches to them for the same reason why people continue to hire underperforming assest managers or why they hire over-priced management consultants. i've got a data-driven solution for evaluating potential business partners, contractors, anything: https://github.com/neyer/respect it's basically page rank, with a small twist. > it's beyond realistic hope that we could actually develop a moral calculus at a national level and use data-driven principles to actually inform the national debate over privacy vs. safety. i think the key here is record taking, with really simple metrics.

i've built an algorithmic system to help people who are civil connect to each other. it's like pagerank, but personalized. Rather than have a top score for the 'most civil person', you use the system to record who you find civil and who you don't. When you interact with a stranger, you can quickly find out "should i bother talking to this person, or are they just going to troll me?" if a bunch of your friends say "hey this guy is worth talking to", then maybe you will. if a bunch of your friends say "this guy is a troll", you'll probably think the same thing. https://github.com/neyer/respect

what do you think of this reputation engine? github.com/neyer/respect

" it’s a score that a never-explained set of network services calculate by directly polling the minds of the people who know about you and your works, reducing their private views to a number. The number itself is idiosyncratic, though: for me, your Whuffie reflects how respected you are by the people I respect. Someone else would get a different Whuffie score when contemplating you and your worthiness. " This is exactly what i'e designed with github.com/neyer/respect It's basically the same as pagerank, but it has an important feature that the author doesn't seem to have considered. Look at the notion of 'soundness of respect' in my code, and see how different it is from anything out there. It provides multiple parties who aren't directly part of a conflict with an incentive to find a resolution. > Gamergate could use to destroy your’s e

> We recognize that decentralized reputation systems are basically the holy grail of p2p systems and we don't even pretend to be solving the problem Check out this proposed solution here. Fully decentralized; it's basically personalized page-rank, for people instead of websites. https://github.com/neyer/respect

so many of these problems have the same root cause: we don't have an effective data driven reputation system. we use gameable heuristics to track social capial. when metrics for evaluation are flawed, people behave in ways that exploit the flaws even if they increase the likelihood of failure. "we are not rewarded for necessary grunt work as much as shiny advances", for example. That's a failure of the reputation system to account for the value of that work. My solution to this problem is a mathematical reputation system based on the same concept as page rank. The system is available here: github.com/neyer/respect I'd love your feedback.

> what is the appropriate way to respond that cannot be described as a "shame mob" here's an algorithmic solution: https://github.com/neyer/respect we could give louder volume to people who we are more likely to respect. rather than some the person, just give them a negative edge, and lessen their volume towards people that respect you. i have an implementation running on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/respectmatrix?fref=ts

author here - i was wondering why this got picked up. i've been working on the respect matrix (https://github.com/neyer/respect) which is a simpler version that gets the kernel of the idea present in dewdrop.