Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 27/Jan/11 22:54, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 01/27/2011 01:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
We all know what a bad reputation *is*, but what we're really
interested in is how a bad reputation *is acquired*.
Agreed. I'm also interested in what one does with the info once you
We can do two sorts of things: share it, and use it for decision making.
I think an additionnal value could be attached to reputation - let me call it a confidence value.
It's the same reasonning that in statistics - you can estimate a value of same variable but you
should also estimate its confidence : how well your "estimation" represents the "real" value of that
And this may be important in decision making.
Confidence value is something intuitive. One reason, *but not the only one*, is well known for all
of us : some RBLs are more reliable than others. Another reason is the amount of data collected
before assigning a bad reputation to someone.
Equally important is how a bad reputation is unacquired.
Isn't that the same as acquiring good reputation? But whom from, in
No. Unacquaring a bad reputation may meant acquiring a neutral reputation.
Asrg mailing list