building reputation: great o'reilly book and blog

[urlwolf]

The book:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596159801

The blog:
http://buildingreputation.com/



Some quotes:

Karma is a reputation score for a user in a community, it may be comprised of many components, such as:

• How long has this person been a member of the community?
• What types of activities has she engaged in?
• How well has she performed at them?
• What do other people think about this person?

Having access to a person's reputation might help you make better informed judgments. Judgements like…

• Can I trust this person?
• Should I transact with this person?
• Is it worth my time to listen to this person?

It's gotten to a point in which most of what I do online depends on my bullshit detectors.
The interesting thing is that even highly educated people fall for dubious advice online. Basically noone check sources online. This can only lead to impoverished decision making.

What are your heuristics for detecting bullshit?

[Paul Keith]

...um sorry, come again?

[mouser]

Really nice find -- very interesting stuff. 

[nudone]

i think online is a lot like offline. you meet, you chat. at first you don't take every word said by a new "friend" as gospel. after a few more encounters you build a picture of this person. at some point you realise that all the outlandish stuff they said is bullshit - or they are just one of those people that live a crazy life (i know someone that can't help but have an adventure every week to the point that his life sounds like total fantasy).

i don't think there's any way of speeding up the process - online or off. you might embrace a forum that is full of bullshitting idiots that just rank up the reputation of each other - because they are all lying buffoons (or teenagers). in which case you'd be mislead into thinking these people are experts - maybe a couple will be.

it used to wind-me-up seeing all the drivel throughout the design blogs. regurgitated "expert" opinion and commentary is the norm. it's everywhere online - with so few real experts. what's the solution? i just stopped reading those blogs and feeds.

it's the same in the real world - there aren't many experts. you'll have to suss them out as you find them - if you do find them.

[urlwolf]

...um sorry, come again?

So...
examples of MY heuristics (i. e. shortcut, tricks, rules of thumb):

• Do the want to sell me something? Do they have an agenda of any kind?
• Do they have more ads than actual text?
• Is the design good? Do they look like they invested time and money?
• Is the url short and meaningful?
• Do I know something about the author that is impressive?
• Is the author talking about the thing he's an expert on, or something completely different?
• Is there any evidence? Or is it just opinion? (big one!)
• Is what he's saying logical, consistent?

[Paul Keith]

Oh that's troublesome then.

For example, I've always ranked Lifehacker on my bullshit detector as far as bad "research due to quantity" blogs go.

I also don't have respect for IGN and Gamespot and I only tolerate Gamefaqs because I know no other.

However they're not only the authority in their category because of their consistency but you have to join a community to find out what the true quality sites for each category are and the only other guaranteed way to make up for that is to be a slot junkie who treats Stumbleupon like a game of slots.

In real life or things like authorship, the same problem rears it's head again.

You can go look for sources but then you'd not only have to take longer to digest something but your subject needs to be of the verifiable kind and not something more case by case like say friendship, relationship, howtoes, manuals and such.

Even with heuristics, you have to assume you're the one holding the cards. Guys like me who don't know about many subjects like say... programming are going to be suckers for books on say... O'Reilly and only realize not all of them satisfies us or are good enough without follow-up books.

Similarly with strangers, it's like meeting a guy in a gym and you having never worked out before and not having money to pay a trainer. How do you not get goaded into that guy's training regimen especially if you're shy or such a weakling that light plates look heavy or looking good = strength training and you're just desperate? (Even with trainers, how do you judge without that experience and when you can't experiment between trainers?)

It is an interesting topic though but I don't have an answer. My only heuristic is to never give up. Never stop clawing at what I don't know nor give up totally when I feel like quitting on verification because I just don't have a map to refer to.

[40hz]

What are your heuristics for detecting bullshit?

I usually ask myself the question: Why is this person telling me this?

Most times people speak with the intention of getting the listener to do something:

• Buy this!
• Do this!
• Join with me on this!
• Believe this!
• Like me!

Less frequent are the times when people speak solely with the intent of sharing information.

That's not to say any speech that supports an agenda is to be dismissed, but rather that it be considered with caution until Cicero's age old question, "Cui bono?" (i.e. Who benefits?), can be answered with some degree of certainty.



--------------

@urlwolf - Nice catch! Interesting looking book.
I'll have to give it a scan at B&N. If it's half as good as its TOC I'll probably buy a copy.

[xtabber]

That book was O'Reilly's book deal of the day last Monday.

Not my idea of an interesting read, but if it's yours, you can probably still get the ebook version from O'Reilly for $9.99 by using the discount code DDBWR.