3 ms·
The Advogato trust metric sorts users into four kinds, "seed" (the built-in trusted users), "good" (those the algorithm assesses as both behaving well and certi
by chalst 13y ago
The Advogato trust metric sorts users into four kinds, "seed" (the built-in trusted users), "good" (those the algorithm assesses as both behaving well and certifying well), "confused" (those the algorithm asseses as behaving well but certifying erratically), and "bad" (assessed as badly behaved).
I think the problem you describe is in essence the need for an automatic trust inference that recognises that worthwhile participants often certify badly and knows how to "prune" the set of tolerated participants down to those whose voting activity is high quality.
Advogato hasn't really been successful overall (Steven Rainwater suspended new account creation a year ago), but there are many successes in its history (it has been run with very little intervention for over 10 years, and generally succeeded in separating spammers from free-software types for most of that period) and its experience is probably worth studying.
http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html
- ecuzzillo 13y agoI clearly remember stages in my life and particular forums in which I have been exactly 'bad', 'confused', and 'good', and this seems like a useful distinction. It requires much more forum experience to identify what kind of comment causes insipid comment threads than it does to write a good comment in the first place. That said, you could probably just measure someone's comment quality and their vote quality independently and get a lot of the benefit, with fewer errors from rigid categorization.