Check out the online reputation of brands, people, institutions, service providers, etc at www.trust-index.com

Trust-index

You can add any item you want to be rated by people from all over the world. Express your trust, and check out what others think about.

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

Haven't had much luck finding such a good info! GREAT JOB! Visit us too: lasix renal scan webpage devoted to lasix renal scan. acidophilus weight loss review webpage devoted to acidophilus weight loss review.

glwhjxi fdkpenr fkhs acfvjq xjcrbzok qjbxycf qiapebf ytdcnikxe irhlztm

ejluo cbuvhaqo bgxlvoc hqkyn lnrbif xkopgd jqri http://www.joqreil.pavbrko.com

ozkh scdraumen pzoys owjkb qatkgm etdojhk ltayjznp

At the digitalthinktank.org we;re discussing a similar concept, although we call it "viral integrity." It's a much more persuasive and viral way to manage cyber reputation. Here's a working definition:

Viral Integrity

A message that is constructed to promote an idea that is culturally encoded and perceived as thematically relevant, such that it spreads virally.

Detailed Etymology

Viral Integrity (in the context of digital promotion)

Viral integrity refers to the ability of content to be replicated and disseminated via Web sites, e-mail, and other digital formats. Content with high viral integrity is more likely than content with low viral integrity to be replicated and disseminated.

High viral integrity is not linked to content validity, because the same content may be viewed as relevant or valid by one group and invalid or unreliable by another. For example, fans of the Rolling Stones might disseminate an article via e-mail stating that “the Rolling Stones are the greatest rock band of all time”—regardless of the source of the article. However, media outlets and the general public might be more likely to disseminate an article about the band that appeared in Time magazine than one that was written by the band’s publicity manager.

Even content that is verifiable does not ensure high viral integrity, since viral integrity can be affected by external factors, such as source, timeliness, and delivery.

Possible methods for measuring viral integrity:
1) Release a statement to the media and track how often the statement is replicated or picked up by media outlets.
2) Disseminate a link via e-mail and track the frequency of visits to the content.
3) Post content on various message boards and track both favorable and unfavorable responses.
4) Track how often content is altered or disputed each time it appears on a Web site. Content with few edits or changes can be considered as having higher viral integrity.

Edited by author 03-03-2003 01:24 AM
Answer to the first post: there was no specific point. It was a "think piece." You yourself may possibly master the art of thinking if, and only if, you learn to use initial caps.

Jakob Nielsen may have mentioned "reputation management" in 1998, but I brought it up as an issue at Esther Dyson's 1996 PC FORUM conference (the term even made it into in the proceedings). Funny thing was, Esther thought the idea silly. Took a couple of years and then Release 1.0 did a full issue on rep mgmt. Go figure.

brian dear
www.nettle.com

Your comments about slashdot and epinions are interesting -- but as a dotcom exec who got it (http://www.emerchandise.com/ is still selling pop culture swag, thank you all!), I'm also fretting about the *unmoderated* *unrated* reputation managers out there.

In specific, BizRate.com does us a great service by getting customer feedback on our sales and fulfillment. At the same time, every response is rated equally, and no real guidelines are given to the survey respondent on how to rate.

The only weighting BizRate uses in your scores is the "what you done for me lately" algorithm -- recent scores seem to be weighted heavier. In a volatile online market this makes sense -- your quality of fulfillment today isn't the same as it was a year ago, so recent responses have more relevance to future predicted performance.

But what do you do when someone rates your fulfillment ZERO on a scale of one to ten because the UPS guy came by your house nine times and didn't leave a sticky note saying s/he was trying to deliver?

Although BizRate says that respondents should evaluate only on the e-commerce company's performance, this zero set our rating back from about 9.0 to about 8.5 for weeks -- just before Christmas. (We appealed to have this survey removed from the results, since it doesn't reflect their own guidelines, and they refused.)

For a company such as Amazon -- a behemoth who delivers hundreds of thousands of orders of orders in a month -- one irrational low response is evened out. But for relatively small companies such as ours, BizRate is set up to punish us disproportionately for one bad apple.

It doesn't take a long time for a user to evaluate a company on bizrate. Store ratings are up front and abstract, and most users probably only look at the overall ratings and perhaps the first screen of user reviews (which, by the way, are not drawn from surveys but from people who just arrive on the bizrate site -- which makes them vulnerable to fraud).

Don't get me wrong -- I think BizRate provides a valuable sanity check on our quality, for our own QA. But I often wonder, as an insider, how much I really can depend on their rating scheme and reviews. Good reputations such as my own company's are valid. But bad reputations can be randomly inflicted on newly rated and small companies, causing them to withdraw from the system or just to look bad interminably.

Reputation is something we value, but it can be made fragile and unreliable by less intelligently weighted systems.

Shava Nerad
VP/Marketing & Business Development
http://emarket-group.com
http://www.emerchandise.com
TV/movie/pop culture stuff

interesting article. what was the point again?