Building Web Reputation Systems

Google Tech Talks
July 1, 2010

ABSTRACT

Presented by Randy Farmer.

*This talk is ideal for system architects, PMs, community managers, UI designers and anyone working on social initiatives.*

What do Amazon's product reviews, eBay's feedback score system, Slashdot's Karma System, and Xbox Live's Achievements have in common? They're all examples of successful reputation systems that enable consumer websites to manage and present user contributions most effectively. Randy will talk about these examples and why reputation systems are critical for any organization that draws from or depends on user-generated content.

"Randy" Farmer has been creating online community systems for over 30 years, and has co-invented many of the basic structures for both virtual worlds and social software. His accomplishments include numerous industry firsts (such as the first virtual world, the first avatars, and the first online marketplace). Randy worked as the community strategic analyst for Yahoo!, advising Yahoo properties on construction of their online communities. Randy was the principal designer of Yahoo's global reputation platform and the reputation models that were deployed on it.

Slides available at http://www.slideshare.net/soldierant/...

• Category

  Science & Technology

[Networkingalliance]

Karma made simple. Great info! Thanks!



[VideoGameCoupons]

great job

[cardinpeggy]

I like the video. Good job!

[joedange2007]

cool, now where's the KFC mate?

[ehsanul]

I'd like to thank you for the very illuminating talk. I guess I have to get your book now. It'll be very helpful when designing the social reputation and anti-gaming system for my web application (jellly.com) under development hope I can make good use of your advice, but I'm sure I"ll make some glaring errors.

[ehsanul]

You mentioned an average of 4.8 among 5-star ratings on youtube. It seems like 4.8 is the average of every rating made (most ratings are made on good/viral 4.99-rated videos), rather than the average of each video's own average rating (which was probably more like 4.1 or so). I used to use this fact, along with a knowledge of the distribution of votes to decide what videos to watch. A 3-star video would be "poor", while 4.5 star is probably good. This used to be very helpful.

[F. Randall Farmer]

There was no such thing as a 3.5-star video on YouTube. That's my point in this presentation - the 5-star scale didn't mean what you thought it meant.

Not your fault, YouTube's mistake, which they've (mostly) corrected.

[fomaden]

Removing the stars from the YouTube is a bad thing for the viewers. How do I know when I come across the video whether it is worth watching, for example these in the Google Tech Talks? If it is 3.5 stars than I am not going to watch it.

[Brandon Buck]

Thumbs up to reflect that I stuck around for the whole video and shared it with friends.

[F. Randall Farmer]

:-)