4 ms·

I actually agree with the idea that we should judge people based on their popularity with customers rather than their peers. Credential are very often indicativ

I actually agree with the idea that we should judge people based on their popularity with customers rather than their peers. Credential are very often indicative of the former

tomComb 3y ago
Who has a better idea whether a lawyer or a surgeon is actually good at their job - their clients or their peers?
- Jensson 3y ago
  It is much easier to collude with peers than with clients, so I'm more likely to trust reviews from clients than peers.
  - c0pium 3y ago
    Much easier to lie to customers though.
- nickpp 3y ago
  When you book a hotel do you base your decision on reviews from other customers or other hotel owners?
- nradov 3y ago
  With professionals it's their peers. Unfortunately that doesn't really help unless you're in the "club". In any community the other doctors all know who are the best surgeons and who are the butchers. But they won't publicly badmouth a peer or even privately tell you unless they really trust you.
yao420 3y ago
Spectrum is the ‘most popular’ internet with the most customers in my area. Not because they are liked but because they are the only option outside of maybe starlink.
mentalpiracy 3y ago
genuinely curious what truth-distilling insight you think the average customer has that somehow can’t be manipulated artificially. people get duped by deceptive marketing every day, man.
- suoduandao2 3y ago
  skin in the game. They paid for the product, and if the company's still in business, didn't sue it or convince everyone else not to. A good review costs a restaurant critic nothing.
- boringds 3y ago
  On the other hand, we have seen how perverse incentive amongst experts work too. Academia is rife with fraud (e.g. publishing 500 paper a year), because certain incentives make it possible. I agree expert are important and should be judged by peers, but incentives around budget allocation and prestige should not be attached to performance, especially in science. However I understand it's a complex topic so I probably miss a lot of information, just my 2 c.
jehb 3y ago
I'm surprised at how many people took the bait to treat this as an either/or proposition. One criteria of evaluation is never sufficient to make a good decision - why not ask both? A smart consumer reads the product label and the user reviews.

I actually agree with the idea that we should judge people based on their popularity with customers rather than their peers. Credential are very often indicative of the former

tomComb 3y ago

Who has a better idea whether a lawyer or a surgeon is actually good at their job - their clients or their peers?

Jensson 3y ago
It is much easier to collude with peers than with clients, so I'm more likely to trust reviews from clients than peers.
- c0pium 3y ago
  Much easier to lie to customers though.
nickpp 3y ago
When you book a hotel do you base your decision on reviews from other customers or other hotel owners?
nradov 3y ago
With professionals it's their peers. Unfortunately that doesn't really help unless you're in the "club". In any community the other doctors all know who are the best surgeons and who are the butchers. But they won't publicly badmouth a peer or even privately tell you unless they really trust you.

yao420 3y ago

Spectrum is the ‘most popular’ internet with the most customers in my area. Not because they are liked but because they are the only option outside of maybe starlink.

mentalpiracy 3y ago

genuinely curious what truth-distilling insight you think the average customer has that somehow can’t be manipulated artificially. people get duped by deceptive marketing every day, man.

suoduandao2 3y ago
skin in the game. They paid for the product, and if the company's still in business, didn't sue it or convince everyone else not to. A good review costs a restaurant critic nothing.
boringds 3y ago
On the other hand, we have seen how perverse incentive amongst experts work too. Academia is rife with fraud (e.g. publishing 500 paper a year), because certain incentives make it possible. I agree expert are important and should be judged by peers, but incentives around budget allocation and prestige should not be attached to performance, especially in science. However I understand it's a complex topic so I probably miss a lot of information, just my 2 c.

jehb 3y ago

I'm surprised at how many people took the bait to treat this as an either/or proposition. One criteria of evaluation is never sufficient to make a good decision - why not ask both? A smart consumer reads the product label and the user reviews.