Re: Academic qualification level -- trust and reputation metrics

[Davi Leal]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:
> > IMHO, trust rankings, web of truth, survey of trust and reputation, etc.,
> > are something fun, but IMHO it is not an objective data which should be
> > taken into account by an employer. It could be even misleading.
>
> I disagree strongly with that suggestion.  Employers already take into
> account a more limited form of such information, in the form of
> referee statements.  Usually this happens as a final step in the
> engagement process, as a current employer may be one of the referees
> and so it notifies them that a worker may be leaving.

You are right MJ. But those referee types are not anonymous. IMHO anonymous 
referees are a bad idea.

I am not against trust and reputation metrics. They are fun, though is it very 
hard to get something useful from it. I will not develop it.


> In my experience, especially in software-related fields, academic
> certificates are more often misleading than referees.

I agree with you about this point. But note the webapp just expose the 
information, without a special sort.

> Demonstrable experience and collaborator opinion are much more
> reliable. 

IMHO demonstrable experience is key.  So I agree with you about the 
significance of the URI references to best commits, email discussion threads, 
etc.


> Skills and projects should be far higher up the resume than
> certificates. 

The webapp just expose organized information, without a special sort. The 
employer decides.


> However, one has to guard against coordinated sabotage of two types:
> pseudo-collaborators who make insincere statements of support (sock
> puppets?); and organised groups of detractors (trolls?).  I'm not sure
> of the best way to do that.

It seems complex. If someelse develops it I will take care so that it does not 
suck. We should try the project do not end in a mess.