--On 26 January 2011 11:52:39 -0500 John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> wrote:
And this goes straight to one of the big issues with any discussion
that uses the term "reputation". I'm going to disagree with you John
when you argue that everyone gets to define what reputation is in
their own way.
I really don't know how to stop them...
It's a linguistic issue. All words are defined by loose convention, and
"reputation" is one of them. Sure, people can use "reputation" to mean
anything they like, but some of those definitions are useful for
communicating with others and some aren't.
But let's not forget that defining "reputation" means two things. First,
the word "reputation" has a fairly tightly constrained meaning in the
English language. Those who argue that reputation can mean anything
probably aren't thinking of a new candidate entry for the Oxford English
Dictionary.
But, second, the method of determining the reputation score that you're
going to publish for any given identifier. That method can vary widely.
Some operators may just viscerally hate the products or services that are
associated with a given domain (vi4gra.com or microsoft.com), whereas
others may have a carefully considered metric based on (say) feedback from
tens of thousands of sites around the world. Those arguing that
"reputation" can mean anything probably are referring to the methodology
used to arrive at a reputation score.
We all know what a bad reputation *is*, but what we're really interested in
is how a bad reputation *is acquired*.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg