Peer-to-Peer Accountability Enforcement/mechanism/CW - Revision history

Woozle at 11:19, 24 October 2017

2017-10-24T11:19:17Z

Woozle at 10:35, 24 October 2017

2017-10-24T10:35:48Z

Woozle: Created page with "'''Credibility Weighting''' (CW) means that all ratings do not figure equally in the aggregate. A rating from a user with a high credibility rating will count more than a user..."

2017-10-24T10:34:07Z

Created page with "'''Credibility Weighting''' (CW) means that all ratings do not figure equally in the aggregate. A rating from a user with a high credibility rating will count more than a user..."

New page

'''Credibility Weighting''' (CW) means that all ratings do not figure equally in the aggregate. A rating from a user with a high credibility rating will count more than a user with a low credibility rating.

'''A pitfall to avoid''': Although it would seem logically consistent, users with ''negative'' credibility ratings must not have ''negative'' influence on the aggregate, as this would give them just as much power to "game the system" by voting ''against'' accounts they actually want to boost. Weighting should either bottom out at zero, or else should follow some curve that never quite goes negative (e.g. log() of the user's rating).

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:19, 24 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Credibility Weighting''' (CW) means that all ratings do not figure equally in the aggregate. A rating from a user with a high credibility rating will count more than a user with a low credibility rating.		'''Credibility Weighting''' (CW) means that all ratings do not figure equally in the aggregate. A rating from a user with a high credibility rating will count more than a user with a low credibility rating.
		+	==Pitfalls==
		+	Although it would seem logically consistent, it's arguable that users with ''negative'' credibility ratings must not have ''negative'' influence on the aggregate, as this would give them just as much power to "game the system" by voting ''against'' accounts they actually want to boost. Weighting should therefore either bottom out at zero, or else should follow some curve that never quite goes negative (e.g. log() of the user's rating). The ''magnitude of influence'' must be some positive function of the user's credibility.

−	'~~''A pitfall~~ to ~~avoid''': Although it would seem logically consistent~~, ~~users with ''negative'' credibility ratings must not have ''negative'' influence on the aggregate~~, ~~as this would give them just as much power to "game~~ the ~~system" by voting ''against'' accounts~~ they ~~actually want to boost~~. ~~Weighting should either bottom out at zero, or else should follow some curve~~ that ~~never quite goes~~ negative ~~(e.g. log() of the user's~~ rating~~). The~~ ''~~magnitude of influence~~'' ~~must be some~~ positive ~~function of the user's credibility~~.	+	PCV may negate this effect, however, since any given user can't predict who will rate them negatively (and it may be a good idea to deny users information, either globally or selectively, about the ratings they have received from others). Further analysis is needed.
		+
		+	Note that it might be confusing if giving someone a negative rating gave them even a ''small'' amount of positive influence, so we want to avoid that as well.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:35, 24 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Credibility Weighting''' (CW) means that all ratings do not figure equally in the aggregate. A rating from a user with a high credibility rating will count more than a user with a low credibility rating.		'''Credibility Weighting''' (CW) means that all ratings do not figure equally in the aggregate. A rating from a user with a high credibility rating will count more than a user with a low credibility rating.

−	'''A pitfall to avoid''': Although it would seem logically consistent, users with ''negative'' credibility ratings must not have ''negative'' influence on the aggregate, as this would give them just as much power to "game the system" by voting ''against'' accounts they actually want to boost. Weighting should either bottom out at zero, or else should follow some curve that never quite goes negative (e.g. log() of the user's rating).	+	'''A pitfall to avoid''': Although it would seem logically consistent, users with ''negative'' credibility ratings must not have ''negative'' influence on the aggregate, as this would give them just as much power to "game the system" by voting ''against'' accounts they actually want to boost. Weighting should either bottom out at zero, or else should follow some curve that never quite goes negative (e.g. log() of the user's rating). The ''magnitude of influence'' must be some positive function of the user's credibility.