4 ms·

I don't see how it would amplify over time - in fact maybe the opposite. If you could opt-in to carry over, you build your reputation over time even as various

I don't see how it would amplify over time - in fact maybe the opposite. If you could opt-in to carry over, you build your reputation over time even as various gig marketplaces come and go. It encourages new marketplaces because workers don't have to worry about building up a good reputaion all over again on a new site, so they're probably gonna be more likely to try out new sites. It discourages scammers because customers know even workers that are new to the platform have built up a good reputation elsewhere, and they know that anything seriously bad will follow them. I see primary difficulty in how to communicate the "egregiously bad reviews will follow you" effect and how to determine which reviews are egregious. Plus it's like 100% probability of it being gamed with bad-actors somehow... (Personally I'd define the "egregiousness scale" to be a time-weighted average that's also weighted by the percentile of the reviewer's average rating - if you give all your gig workers 3 stars, then 3 stars is effectively 5 stars for you so workers see that benefit, and reviews further in the past count less against you both pro and con. But I'm not qualified to know if this would actually work out.)

lev99 9y ago
It makes someone new to the economy have to work even harder to get a start. If there is a new gig platform and I have 0 rep, that's fine because everyone has 0 rep. If there is a new gig platform and I have 0 rep, and a lot of people brought their portable reputation with them, it means I have a disadvantage. It does provide more knowledge to consumers, and it does allow people to make different choices about who works for them.
- ryanianian 9y ago
  I like your notion of a level playing field, but I think you're basically saying we should ignore past experience on other marketpalces because it favors people with an established track-record? Isn't someone with a proven track-record exactly the kind of person we want to favor? Gig marketplaces come and go. If you spend 5 years working dozens of jobs a week to build up thousands of positive reviews only to have the marketplace go belly-up and now you have to start at zero, how do you think the gig economy can retain actual talent that expects to get paid well for their proven track-record? Or put it another way: I personally like the option of being able to pay more for people with a long history of positive reviews. I'm willing to pay much less to hire an untrusted worker. I don't think I'm alone. If everything starts at zero every few years, then all the wages reset to baseline every few years as well. Sure let people start at zero, but also let them get paid like an untrusted worker. And sure, let people bring over their experience. But let them get paid and charge like they have that experience.
  - lev99 9y ago
    Describing who benefits from properties of one policy (non-transferable reputation) is not an inherit stance in favor of that policy. Every policy has winners and losers. I just felt like on this discussion thread there was a loser (people entering the gig economy) not mentioned.
    - ryanianian 9y ago
      Good point.

lev99 9y ago

It makes someone new to the economy have to work even harder to get a start. If there is a new gig platform and I have 0 rep, that's fine because everyone has 0 rep. If there is a new gig platform and I have 0 rep, and a lot of people brought their portable reputation with them, it means I have a disadvantage. It does provide more knowledge to consumers, and it does allow people to make different choices about who works for them.

ryanianian 9y ago
I like your notion of a level playing field, but I think you're basically saying we should ignore past experience on other marketpalces because it favors people with an established track-record? Isn't someone with a proven track-record exactly the kind of person we want to favor? Gig marketplaces come and go. If you spend 5 years working dozens of jobs a week to build up thousands of positive reviews only to have the marketplace go belly-up and now you have to start at zero, how do you think the gig economy can retain actual talent that expects to get paid well for their proven track-record? Or put it another way: I personally like the option of being able to pay more for people with a long history of positive reviews. I'm willing to pay much less to hire an untrusted worker. I don't think I'm alone. If everything starts at zero every few years, then all the wages reset to baseline every few years as well. Sure let people start at zero, but also let them get paid like an untrusted worker. And sure, let people bring over their experience. But let them get paid and charge like they have that experience.
- lev99 9y ago
  Describing who benefits from properties of one policy (non-transferable reputation) is not an inherit stance in favor of that policy. Every policy has winners and losers. I just felt like on this discussion thread there was a loser (people entering the gig economy) not mentioned.
  - ryanianian 9y ago
    Good point.