3 ms·
Because: (1) People ratings are far too subjective to be considered "knowledge". We have none of the context needed to evaluate the validity of these ratings—t
by verisimilidude 11y ago
Because:
(1) People ratings are far too subjective to be considered "knowledge". We have none of the context needed to evaluate the validity of these ratings—the kind of thing you can suss out when gossiping in person.
(2) People can and do change, but these ratings would persist. It makes fresh starts and self-improvement that much more difficult.
(3) People can and do forgive, but these ratings would serve as permanent reminders of bad deeds.
(4) What problem do these ratings solve? I see many problems created, but with no real benefit.
- mdpopescu 11y agoCriminal records have (almost) the same problems; what makes them superior? Incidentally, you could solve (2) by "dimming" the relevance of a review as time goes on, eventually clearing it altogether. You could also have a "faster dimming speed" for younger people than for older ones, on the grounds that the young are stupid and the old are probably harder to change.
- verisimilidude 11y agoCriminal records are presumably based upon written laws, public evaluation of collected evidence, trial, and conviction. That process doesn't always arrive at the right outcome, but at least it strives to be correct. And later, you can find those records and make up your own mind about the person with the rap sheet, if needed. That can't be the case with personal ratings, because there's no public evaluation or context or validation of each rating. You talk about "dimming" as if it solves a problem, but what overall problem do personal ratings solve, really? "Dimming" is a solution patched on top of a non-problem. I don't get it.