Sunday, October 24, 2004

Reputations in Online and Offline Environments

Let’s consider reputations for a moment, in both online and offline environments, and ponder the following:

  • Are good reputations necessary? Rewarded?
  • How are reputations established?
  • How does reciprocity fit into the cycle?
  • What are the benefits of having a good reputation?
  • Are people honest when talking about others?
  • Should censorship be allowed?
It’s probably pretty safe to say that no one wants a bad reputation, whether online or offline. In general, I think people want to be trusted, to have a solid reputation, to encourage cooperation and experience synergy. While reading the articles this week, I thought about my own online experiences with reputation, specifically on eBay (didn’t you love Resnick’s definition of eBay, a “vast electronic garage sale”?), and my offline experiences, specifically when selecting professors.

How are online reputations established? On eBay, both buyers and sellers are given the opportunity to rate their experience as positive, negative, or neutral, and then that reputation follows that person as long as they keep the same pseudonym. Assuming that past behavior is the best indication of future behavior, both parties can benefit or suffer negative consequences depending upon their reputation. Newcomers are typically distrusted until they “prove” themselves.

How are offline reputations determined? You can look up a professors’ scores from evaluations (for instance, USU’s stats are located here). However, often students learn about others’ experiences with professors by word of mouth. Students tend to talk to one another about who is lenient, who is fun, who is knowledgeable, etc. This is similar to an online environment, we learn from others’ experiences. But how do we get people to supply this feedback so people can utilize others’ experiences?

Eliciting Feedback

Eliciting feedback is a tricky business – whether online or offline. Why do eBay buyers take the extra time to offer their feedback? To offer gratitude or revenge? Are only the extreme experiences shared? In both online and offline environments, people have the opportunity to share their experiences. After completing a transaction, both buyers and sellers have the option of leaving information about their counterpart. I’m pretty sure that with my first eBay purchase I didn’t leave any feedback. I just didn’t realize what the whole thing was all about. However, as I’ve become more experienced as a consumer, I realize the value of leaving information about sellers in particular and appreciate the positive feedback I’ve experienced as a buyer.

Why do students fill out class evaluation forms? Do they fill them out? My brother is currently working on his MBA from the University of Utah. To facilitate student evaluations, they have put a rather clever system into practice. Students fill out their evaluations online, outside of class time, and then they can access their grades earlier than possible if they don’t complete course evaluations. This is a great example of reciprocity.

Benefits

“Conceptually, we should expect reputations to affect not just rates of cooperation, but also the price of goods in these markets. If these reputation systems do in fact provide useful information and in an incentive to behave in a trustworthy manner, buyers should be willing to pay more for a good it if comes from a highly rated seller, at least when the transaction involves significant risk” (Kollock, 1999, p. 14). Earlier this year I was interested in purchasing a set of Living Scriptures DVDs. At the time I was ready to start actively pursuing this purchase, there were two sets with very similar descriptions. However, the reputations of the sellers were very different. I chose to bid on the set from seller with a substantially more solid reputation and probably paid a bit more for that added assurance that the transaction would go well, backing up Resnick’s claim that “with clear reputation markers, low quality sellers receive lower prices, leaving a healthier market with a variety of prices and service qualities” (p 3).

Honesty

Honesty can be challenging in both environments. Students may be upset with the professor throughout the course and the evaluation may be a way to “get even.” Similar things can happen in an online environment – friends can rate one another high to inflate their reputations. Sometimes negative feedback can be inappropriately used as a leveraging tool.

Censorship

In setting up a formal environment for leaving feedback, it is important to consider censorship. What type of censorship should be available in online and offline environments? As I looked at the various scores for professors at USU, particularly those in the IT department, I felt the scores were only a small piece of the puzzle. I would like to see comments written about professors, but this option is currently not available. And would this even be fair? To both former students and the professors? And what about the manpower to facilitate such a change? Of course, if we adopted the U of U’s method and conducted these online, the manpower to put the comments up wouldn’t be an issue. However, would I be more intimidated to post comments because the world could see or would I be more motivated because someone besides the professor (who we only hope read the suggestion section) might actually benefit from our experiences?

And who gets to post comments? Kollock brings up that fact that at eBay, only those that have completed a transaction are allowed to post. What if as a potential consumer, you notice something that isn’t quite right? There is no way to leave feedback under these circumstances. In a course evaluation, only students that have completed the course get to leave feedback. So what about those students that dropped? I’m not recommending a change, just an interesting observation.

When looking at the relationships between cooperation, incentives, reputations, and trust in both online and offline environments, it is important to look at feedback, how it will be elicited, the benefits of doing so, the poster's level of honesty and to determine whether or not to allow censorship.

1 Comments:

At October 28, 2004 at 1:28 AM, Blogger CHIA Howie (Xie Aowei) 谢 傲 威 said...

I like this particular posting of yours.

I agree with you that in setting up online reputations like in eBay, ‘Newcomers are typically distrusted until they “prove” themselves.’ It goes along with the critical mass some sellers/buyers attain after sometime where feedback becomes a norm for them, and they don’t even bother to respond to negative feedback anymore.

The biggest gripe I have with offline reputations is the tricky business of eliciting feedback. Because in face2face situations we do not have the protection of the anonymity of the web. Your example of students filling out class evaluation forms in the U of U is an excellent example of reciprocity, and avoiding possible repercussions of honest feedback. And we know how valuable those information are!

I did not really think of censorship in depth until I read your post. To me, this brings a new equation to the game. Censorship can determine what kinds of comments get posted, and who gets to post. Same thing applies to blog post & comments too.

If we house the blog system in a school, then technically all those post & comments belong to the school. Who then determines what types of religious, stereotyping, political, other sensitive issues are to be considered taboo subjects? What about countries without first amendment right protection or freedom of speech? How is censorship different in those context? I do not the answers either, but like the observation you raised.

cheers,
BH

 

Post a Comment

<< Home