So many sites get their reputation system slightly wrong, and end up incentivizing behaviors that they claim to not want. On discussion forums with reputation systems, the "echo chamber" effect is encouraged - it's been a running joke on slashdot since before the term "online reputation system" was coined. Also, early replies get viewed and upvoted more often, encouraging quick responses over more thoughtful (but later!) ones.
Related:<p>Just yesterday I noticed that OReilly recently published Building Web Reputation Systems (Randy Farmer, Bryce Glass)<p><a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596159801" rel="nofollow">http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596159801</a><p><a href="http://buildingreputation.com/" rel="nofollow">http://buildingreputation.com/</a><p>Randy was consulting with a company I was at a couple of years ago and while the two of us certainly didn't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, it encouraged a lot of thought and debate.<p>I'll be ordering the book today.
It's not clear whether this book really grapples with the problem of pseudonymity on the web. What happens when a single user can start multiple accounts--one for good behavior and the other for trolling? When the trolling account gets banned, can they just start another one?<p>There can be no 'reputation' without an answer to the problem of pseudonymity.
Here @ HN the simplicity of Karma allows for the most inciteful and productive community discussions on the net. Would any of these suggestions actually improve the way things work here?<p>Also, as much as i hate blippy and swipely - if companies know who actually purchased a good - then their feedback becomes hugely valuable.