Talk:Reputation management/Archives/2017

Explanation of my Edits that were reversed
I was copyediting most of the article to improve clarity, however the "Justification" section is not entirely needed as the reasons why groups use reputation management is explained in sections before it, so I removed it. CoolieCoolster (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * CoolieCoolster - Fine by me! I just didn't understand why you were doing it (your edit summary just said that you removed it). Thanks for taking the time to come to the article's talk page and explain. I really do appreciate it.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Needs User Perspective: Reputation assessment/svc
There are a number of websites & services to allow web users to more easily assess the veracity of websites they visit. This might be considered the 'Public Education' aspect of the Reputation Industry (which might be argued) interested in obscuring any negative or harmful reputation information (whether true or not). It might be appropriate to, instead, build a 'Reputation Assessment' page, or to recognize & describe the MyWoT.com type of reputation site (like a yelp.com for web sites), which is a meld of opaque (to mitigate gaming, & presumably objective) reputation algorithm, and public, anecdotal, subjective rating & reports of individual user experience.--Wikidity (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)