Yelp, But for People

Reputation ratings will make the world more efficient and transparent.


Internet entrepreneurs have been trying for years to create "Yelp for people," a service that would take the practice of reductively quantifying other human beings beyond the rarefied realms of beauty contests and the National Football League draft.

In October 2015, the latest aspirant, Peeple, generated a backlash while still in the elevator pitch stage. When The Washington Post reported that the app, which didn't exist yet, would allow users to post both positive and negative reviews of anyone they interacted with, even if the reviewee hadn't opted in to the system, humanity responded with an emphatic thumbs-down.

"Since the interview with the Washington Post, I've received death threats and extremely insulting comments aimed at me, my investors, and my family on almost every social media tool possible," Peeple co-founder Julia Cordray wrote at Linked­In. But don't look for Cordray to vindictively name names. "Peeple is a POSITIVE ONLY APP," she wrote, pivoting from earlier descriptions of the service. "We want to bring positivity and kindness to the world." It will be "100% OPT-IN" and "there is no way to even make negative comments." Presumably, even the sadface emoji will be persona non grata there.

China may not let its citizens off quite so easily. According to government documents that were translated by Oxford University China expert Rogier Creemers in June 2014, China is developing a "social credit system" that will create a numerical rating for individuals using information drawn from financial transactions, criminal records, and social media behavior. The system, the International Business Times concluded in an April 2015 article, will be designed to "hold all citizens accountable for financial decisions as well as moral choices."

But while China's vision may escalate the idea behind platforms like Peeple from the merely annoying and intrusive into the realm of oppressive and coercive, there is, in fact, a positive case to be made for the liberating virtues of reputation systems. One reason the "Yelp for people" dream remains so persistent is because Yelp for optometrists, life coaches, and laundromats has proven so useful. Instead of relying on marketing and other forms of branding, scattershot news media coverage, and government regulations designed to protect consumers (that may or may not succeed), we can now easily access detailed information about people's actual past experiences with businesses, products, services, places, and more. Yes, reviews that appear on Yelp, TripAdvisor, Amazon, and elsewhere may contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information, but these systems work so well on the whole that millions of people regularly consult them before making decisions about how to spend their time and money.

Just as important, millions of retailers, manufacturers, service providers, and commercial entities of other kinds now embrace reviews, too. In the early days of e-commerce, many businesses considered the prospect of uncontrollable consumer reviews threatening. Now, virtually every time you buy a sweater online or book a hotel room, you get an email from the merchant in the wake of the experience, asking for feedback and assessment. In the Internet era, the after-sell is often harder than the sell.

Merchants mass-nag their customers in this manner because they know people tend to provide positive feedback more often than negative feedback—numerous studies have shown that higher review volume correlates with higher overall ratings, and higher ratings lead to more sales.

In theory, individuals can also benefit from this new era of hyper-scrutiny, and to a certain extent, of course, they already do—at sites like, LinkedIn, eBay, Uber, Airbnb, Yelp itself, and many others. In fact, on transaction-oriented platforms such as eBay, Uber, and Airbnb, reputation systems aren't just tolerated—they're embraced as the mechanism that provides the trust that helps these marketplaces function efficiently.

As Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey suggests in her coverage of Peeple, this kind of reputation assessment is generally considered permissible because it involves an economic transaction of some kind. "You paid thousands of dollars to take that class, so you're justified and qualified to evaluate that transaction," she writes.

But most existing reputation systems are also flawed from an individual's point of view, because the results can rarely if ever be transferred from one place to another. In the digital age, character may be capital, but the character capital you accrue through years of conscientious eBay transactions isn't fungible. It only, or at least primarily, has value on one website. (You could potentially highlight your high eBay global feedback score on your LinkedIn profile.)

Companies like Amazon and Uber have little incentive to make such information portable. The reputation scores you establish on their sites, and the benefits you accrue because of them—more potential transactions because people trust you, fewer problematic interactions because you know whom to avoid—help keep you locked in to these platforms.

But as the gig economy becomes a larger part of people's work lives, and as technologies like Bitcoin, telepresence, and instant translation expand the possibilities for how and with whom people do their jobs, broader forms of reputation will become increasingly attractive. While Julia Cordray may not have initially done a good job of assuring the world that Peeple is concerned with mitigating the potential for major abuses and with giving users at least some control over how their reputation is presented, the platform is, at least, a bid to establish a more all-encompassing and portable reputation system.

Her app will apparently incorporate only one form of information input—reviews from other users. Karma (, a Los Angeles-based site that launched a public beta version last spring without attracting the sort of backlash that greeted Peeple, also encourages user reviews (which it calls "vouches") but is primarily built around incorporating data from other digital platforms and marketplaces, including Facebook, LinkedIn, Airbnb, Etsy, eBay, DogVacay, Twitter, and Foursquare.

Your overall Karma score derives from the sum of your activity on these sites, some of which it weights differently. (For example, reviews from sites that require face-to-face interaction, like DogVacay or Airbnb, are weighted more heavily than reviews from eBay or Etsy.) While Karma is opt-in only, you might still end up with a low overall rating, because in part the site evaluates you on the degree to which you're participating on the platforms it monitors. (If your rating is low, it advises, it could be "because of lack of activity.")

In their 2010 book Building Web Reputation Systems, Randy Farmer and Bryce Glass point out that eBay feedback scores and other forms of web reputation are highly contextual, and note the dangers of trying to extrapolate a "global user reputation" that can be deployed anywhere from only a few primary values.

But while it's true, as they suggest, that someone who achieves a high eBay feedback score "may in fact also steal candy from babies, cheat at online poker, and fail to pay his credit card bills," that concern diminishes at least somewhat as platforms like Karma expand their scope. Chances are good they'll eventually be able to learn from, say, negative TaskRabbit reviews, that you actually are the kind of person who steals candy from babies, and ding you accordingly. And as they draw from a wider and wider range of sites, these services will eventually develop a genuinely thorough record of your actions and behaviors.

Of course, even Karma ultimately has its own economic interests and incentives, just like eBay and Uber. The site biases participation, because more participation makes its own service more accurate and thus valuable. And ultimately it may not be willing to tell users exactly how it arrives at its overall scores, because then competitors would have access to that information, too.

What would benefit individuals most is a global open-source system, a Bitcoin for reputation, outside the control of any corporation or government. Unlike a mandatory national system (e.g., China's proposed social credit system) or a corporate one with incentives that don't always align with users' best interests, an open source system would likely offer the greatest level of transparency and portability for individual users.

As our opportunities to interact and transact with more and more humans and machines proliferate, so too does the need for reputation systems that can tell us whom to trust and whom to avoid. In time, it will become less and less possible to opt out of this new world without suffering major economic and even social consequences. In such a world, the people need something better than Peeple, a system worth opting into, designed to serve individuals rather than governments or corporations. But that will only happen if people create it.

NEXT: The Summer's Gone

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The reason this is so distasteful to people is the same reason that businesses crave feedback and beg you to give some (And even bribe you with $5 off your next purchase and/or entries to win $1,000):

    People only review you when they want something. And the review is always negative unless you give them what they want. That’s why businesses want feedback from people who would give a positive view of their products and services because the negative reviews are useless in determining what went wrong.

    The problem with this is that individuals don’t have the time, energy, or funds to counter act someone’s bad will. You get survey requests from a business after you buy a sweater – do you really want to start getting review requests from that guy you sat two rows down from the bus on so that he can counter act his crazy ex’s review of him?

    If you want to “make the world more efficient and transparent” then you should instead be advocating for a complete break down of all privacy. Did you spend $40 on an adult site? Everyone knows that you dig Roosters Hot Lovin dot com, now.

    That would be actual transparency. There is no need for reviews and the obvious obfuscation and manipulation that comes from them.

    1. Note that I don’t endorse a complete break down of privacy. I’m just amused and disturbed that someone plays up the merits of reviews while completely ignoring how they are used in the real world. The only reason that a place like eBay’s reviews work is because it is hyper-focused. Now go and look at all of the product bombing that occurs on places like Amazon or person- and political-view-bombing on Wikipedia or business-bombing on places like Yelp. It always happens after a news story and 90% of the posters don’t know facts from yellow journalism while throwing their own biases into the mix.

      The Environmental Protection Agency has a great mission! To keep our country pollution free! Now just ignore how they are actually performing and let’s sing kumbaya!

      Congress is supposed to reign in the executive branch via legislation and purse strings! Ignore the fact that they let the executive spend what they want as well as write their own legislation (called “regulations”), and lets’ celebrate the original intent!

    2. Or just make everyone wear their credit score on their sleeve, and post it on their car.

      1. There’s so many ways to game a credit score, though, that I’m not convinced that would be a viable alternative.

      2. …along with their prison record, oh yeah!

  2. Any system like this would need an anti-spiking system of some sort. If suddenly someone who has only gotten ten reviews over two years gets a hundred in fifteen minutes, the system needs to freeze the reviewing process and not post the new reviews until the user lets them know if they are under a twitter mob attack.

    1. Yes, this is the tricky part.

      See a guy kicking a puppy. He gets a ton of downvotes.

      Or was he just a Pats fan in Seattle?

      Also, you could see out women with very marginal ratings and threaten them with a bad review.

  3. The lives of the people who wish to build these reputation systems are enviable, having never been through a bad break up.

  4. This is completely fucking insane. Sometimes engineers and libertarians need to take a step back and try to understand that not everything can or should be quantified, despite their autistic instincts to the contrary.

    Aside from the egregious privacy concerns and the fact that people on the internet are fucking horrible, even if it works perfectly this will become yet another way to shut out poor and otherwise disadvantaged people from participation in the economy. People who haven’t been privileged enough to network in the sort of circles that would use this service, people who are coming out of jail, people who are simply trying to turn their life around — all will have yet another hurdle for entrance into the world of the productive. A credit report for your personality. Wonderful.

    We are very rapidly creating a world in which you either participate in the lifestyle of the successful, or you’re simply left behind. And the number of people who are being left behind is growing tremendously. This isn’t going to help.

    1. I think you’re wrong. If you assign a price to bad behavior, people reform.

      Ever wonder why salesmen tend to be polite?

      Ever wonder why DMV employees are not?

      Actually, is that a compromise? roll it out for government employees. Under 4 star review and you’re canned…like Uber.

      1. No, the people don’t reform. They find a black market. What has been the result of all of the regulations about every aspect of our lives? A “grey” market that the government says approaches $2 T a year.

        And the problem is that you are looking only at the face of the problem and not the causes. Salesman are nice because they are trying to stick you for a scam – a bum car, an extended warranty, whatever. Charming you means that they can more easily slip something by you, which benefits them.

        A DMV employee “isn’t polite” because they can’t play your game of bending the rules for efficiency’s sake because it will cost them personally. They are that way not because of a “price for bad behavior” but because of a “price for good behavior.” If they bend the rules to license your mug faster and more efficiently, they lose their job. If they don’t go “We love our leader.” they are fired. Why? Because either you elected an egotistical jackass above them to the County Clerk seat or the County Clerk was appointed by another egotistical jackass. If you criticize them, you are gone. If you don’t follow their rules like they were God’s law and you are standing in front of a burning bush, you are gone.

        A rating system wouldn’t do anything for either of these situations because they aren’t dealing with the problem, they are simply giving you a place to bitch and moan and make you feel superior.

        1. Salesmen are polite because their business depends on it. When I say salesmen, I don’t mean con-man, which is apparently what you mean.

          I mean like when I had two neighbors and one was a business and the other was a woman who didn’t work…guess who was super polite and made sure we were okay when people parked near our home, etc.?

          The business person.

          The unemployed women swept her trash onto our parking area.

          Incentives matter.

          The baker doesn’t get up at 5:00 am because he loves you.

          1. You had a business man neighbor who happened to be polite. I’ve met vagrants who helped police neighborhoods they were homeless in. That is a vagrant that happens to be polite.

            And you talk about incentives – but you don’t seem to understand them. Salesmen near and far (which is not the same as “business man”) are incentivized to sell you products and services you don’t need because the incentive is in the maximum dollar transfer from you to their company. Sure, maybe you don’t accept that extended warranty on the toaster you bought at Sears, but the ten people behind you that don’t have the information they need to reject the offer will. Did they need it? No. Did they buy it? Statistics show that a lot of them do. So, are all salesmen at these jobs conmen? I don’t think so, but I also know for a fact that the incentive is completely removed from their interactions with the public, and a rating system wouldn’t change that.

            And matching your business cycle to your customers’ demand is different than that person as a private individual. After all, a lot of the most successful people are sociopaths when it comes to advancing their business but down right polite and personable in person – even if you work for them and they are affecting you with their business decisions.

            If you can’t separate the two – business and personal – you are going to go head first into a surprising reality when people start making reviews about you in your own brave new world.

            1. Polite vagrants would get good reviews, too.

              The point about businesses is that they have a financial incentive to be nice to you. Most of the con-man stuff is almost always very large ticket, one-off deals. And….if you could rate them, you could drive a liar who cheated you out of business. This indeed happens on Amazon all the time. Feedback below a certain amount, and you’re cut off.

              But the point is that they have an incentive to be nice, and to not take a crap on your car or grab your wife’s heiney.

              But the guy at DMV or the guy who double parks doesn’t care. Or cops. There’s a reason they have badge numbers.

              I agree this could have major issues with gaming, etc., but so does Uber and Amazon and there may be ways around it.

              I view this as similar to “an armed society is a polite society.

              p.s. my entire business is reviewed both via feedback and product reviews.

              I already live in this world. I think some people abuse it, but mainly its a great system.

              There are a few niggles, like if you start off with a bad review it sucks…but your mom and dad will give a 5 star to start off, right?

              Right, mom? Mom?

              1. The problem is that you are a small business. Try managing a review platform for a large company – even if all you are talking about is retail.

                You will soon understand why if you complain to a company like Pet Smart, you will get a gift card with no questions asked. For them, it’s simply cheaper. They won’t make anything better and they will only rarely make an action against the party that “wronged” you. Why? Because that person makes them money and throwing a few dollars at you is cheaper than abridging that dynamic. And, like I said, if you agree to buy a replacement plan, will you go write a bad review and admit that you were a dumbass? No, of course not.

                As for the DMV employee, the incentive already exists and it exists to stroke the ego of the elected position – who was elected in power by a system that already operates on the same system you propose here: decentralized + or -. That’s done fantastically with less than half of the populace even participating. You know how many people actually review their products? Less than 5%. And the majority of those are negative, and most of those negatives are either trying to hurt the company (people will listen to me!) or trying to extort the company.

                But, no, rating the DMV employee will totally make a difference. Nepotism and favoritism will have nothing to do with it. Heck, no ratings is the only reason that voting doesn’t work to elect the best and the brightest already, right?


                1. Hmmmmm, keep in mind the customer can be rated, too.

                  eBay does this. Uber does this. Amazon used to do this, but they now don’t allow 3rd party vendors to do it, but they themselves keep a black list and kick off bad customers.

                  Banks also do this. For example, if you are blacklisted, you can’t even open an account!

                  Also, as a small business we face the exact same thing and my rule is to always “make the problem customer go away” with a refund, whatever. Its not just Petsmart.

                  Some foreign countries do actually have ratings for government employees: Chinese immigration /customs has buttons you can push to “rate” your service.

                  I see your points, but I also see a variety of organizations using these very successfully. Uber drivers are nice because the jerks get booted, as do the crazy customers.

                  I think its the future. Probably will not become universal, but by application.

                  By the way, if you have a financial advisor, use brokercheck to see if they have any personal bankruptcies, complaints, etc. Again, intrusive, yes, but it helps stops those con-men you run into. Personally, as a non-con man business person, I welcome this stuff.

          2. I agree with Harun.

            I happen to have recent first-hand experience with Yelp and a con-man used-car salesman.

            I bought a used car on ebay. The seller had ~300 feedbacks at 100% on ebay. Before bidding, I researched the seller very carefully and found a single 1-star review on Yelp, where the buyer called the seller out as a serial liar that made promises to correct problems but never followed through.

            Knowing this, I still bid on the car, but I bid $4000 less than the car was worth. Somehow, I still won.

            Going into the purchase, I went in as prepared as possible. I double-checked to make sure I did everything right to be able to qualify for the free $50,000 of “ebay buyer protection” and brought a buddy that is a car dealer himself and very well-versed in the car-buying process.

            Good thing I did. I very nearly needed to activate the ebay buyer protection. The seller made some huge mistakes in the DMV paperwork, omitting forms that caused the DMV to reject the title transfer. The seller also made some glib promises about getting me the missing ignition key and other paperwork he forgot to take care of. I was prepared for his “lying and promising stuff to close the deal” that the Yelper had warned the world about, so I politely hammered the guy after the sale until he got tired of me and gave me direct access to the people I needed to get the overlooked stuff taken care of.

            1. Obviously the seller was used to a pattern of making glib promises he knew he wouldn’t keep and gliding on through, counting on the conned buyer to just give up. I knew this going in and priced it into the bid. It took about 2.5 months for all the loose ends to get tied up. Due to my own aggressiveness in chasing this guy down, I did not have to enact the ebay buyer protection, even though it got down to the wire.

              Of course, I still lost a lot of time and effort (not $4000 worth), so I decided to help future buyers by documenting my own experience on Yelp with a 2-star review, just as the first Yelp reviewer had helped me by leaving a 1-star review.

              Then and only then did I get a call back from this user car salesman. He started out by acting as if he were following up, trying to pick up any loose ends that he had ignored until he got the negative review. I wasn’t fooled–he eventually started to challenge my complaints (politely), and I explained why he had failed. He honestly did not know that he had done wrong–but the call allowed me to catalog the mistakes he made.

              Will he reform himself? I don’t know for sure, but I think he will.

              1. This seller used to have a car dealership license with the state. My buddy who also owns a car dealership suspects that due to this seller’s behavior (not taking care of small but important details like DMV paperwork) probably caused him to lose his occupational license. The seller is still selling cars but under consignment–that ended up saving me because I ended up having to go around him directly to the private party previous owner for the missing paperwork (Wow, I’m a libertarian, and I’m admitting that a state-run licensing scheme actually worked to hinder–but not completely stop–a glib liar of a businessperson.)

                But now, with two negative Yelp reviews that prospective buyers are discovering (one of them brought up the negative review with the seller, which is why he called me to take it down), he will be forced to improve or at the very least change the name under which the business is operating. Changing the business name discards any good reputation he may have developed so far.

                Peeple would attach a reputation to his person. It would be harder to shed than a business name. He could still legally change his name, but others can note that he did.

                Again, I don’t know if he will actually reform his behavior, but at the least, people can warn each other to avoid him. That is valuable to society and individuals for sure.

                1. Regarding the “Wow, I’m a libertarian that got partially protected by a state-run licensing scheme,” this supports Beato’s idea that we can replace state-run social scoring with openly-particpative social scoring.

                  Will we need a State Board of Occupational Licensing if Peeple and Angie’s List can protect buyers from crooked sellers? Probably not. It would probably still exist–it’s hard to kill the Leviathan–but it would not make a lot of sense to fund it, and it would probably shrink over time till it is basically too small for the public and some waste-busting Congressmen to notice.

                  1. Angies List. I use them, too.

                    Found a guy to clean my gutters. A ratings mainly, but several said he was not that reliable with his appointments.

                    Sure enough, this guy’s not reliable with his scheduling. He will do it, but it takes him several tries.

                    He’s just some dude with an old truck and a willingness to sometimes work, so I tolerate it, but it was nice going in knowing what the problem would be.

                    His name is also Augie. How can you not be tolerant of a guy named Augie.

                    But sometimes I wonder…all these poor guys walking down my street with no job…they could be like Augie, except on-time, and probably charge an extra $20. Note: $125 for this job. He was done in one hour plus a little.

                2. I also have this reservation as a libertarian. I am an honest businessman, but have met scumbags.

                  I know that mattresses have tags because scumbags used to stuff old mattresses with garbage (literally) and re-skin them to sell as “new.”

                  I know that furniture stores can’t constantly claim to be having “going out of business sales” for example.

                  I guess those two are covered under fraud, but people might not ever know they we defrauded.

                  However, after seeing Uber work, and experiencing Amazon first-hand, you realize there are ways to possibly have better regulation without the state.

                  I do think these systems are often better than the state. The guy who operates in some gray area as per your experience, or who opens it under his wife’s name, etc. The state doesn’t catch them.

                  And if you haven’t noticed, lately, the state seems to be getting lazier about doing its job.

                  I wonder how that guy got 300 good feedback on eBay.

    2. A reputation system would be very helpful for ex-cons trying to get back into productive private life. Someone gives them a menial job, and they do it well, and don’t steal anything = decent review. Then the next employer gives them a little better job, and they get good ratings again. They take some night classes, and now the next employer with the job they actually want has something to weigh that criminal record against.

      1. I have thought about this, too.

        College is supposed to work as a signal that you can be diligent, be on time, etc.

        Suppose we came up with an app that would throw out small tasks daily that you would accomplish, and over a 6 month period you could show an employer that you are reliable.

        Woke up at 7:00 on Saturday and played a special video game, then was geolocated at the corner of X & X one hour later.

        Do these things for 6 months and year and get a reliability rating.

        1. College is supposed to work as a signal that you can be diligent, be on time, etc.

          It’s supposed to be a place where you can receive an actual education, rather than a half-assed trade school. Sadly, most of them are abysmal. Most of the students don’t care because the only thing they care about are shallow things like money and jobs, which you would think make them more suitable for trade schools. The “Everybody’s gotta go to college” nonsense has just made the problem worse and has flooded colleges and universities with shallow know-nothing losers.

          Anyone serious about their education will become an autodidact. Any employer who would turn you down simply for having a degree is a lazy moron and you wouldn’t want to work there anyway.

      2. I agree with you, sort of.

        The problem is that sociopaths have no problem trying to game the system. Chris Brown, when ordered to perform community service for beating Rhianna, was caught red-handed fraudulently weaseling his way out of it:…..d-resigns/

        He was apparently photographed by paparazzi somewhere far away from where the community service was supposedly being performed at the time he claimed he performed it.

        BUT, this is not a problem that technological and non-technological systems can solve. The very definition of a sociopath is that they game the system and exploit systems of normal social behaviors. Whatever some techie might invent in the future, the sociopaths will try and game it.

        1. Sure, but if you can hire someone to wake up at 7:00 am and complete two levels of a game, and then geolocate two blocks away with a photo of yourself….

          you don’t need a job.

        2. Sure, but if you can hire someone to wake up at 7:00 am and complete two levels of a game, and then geolocate two blocks away with a photo of yourself….

          you don’t need a job.

  5. My fantasy proposal was one where every taxpayer could upvote or downvote anti-social behavior by those on welfare.

    No more scumbag wif tats talking smack to citizens. (Well, he can do that, but then his EBT card is revoked.)

    Pull up your pants and stop cursing in public… or your EBT card can be revoked.

    You get the idea.

    If you are not on the state teat, then we don’t care.

    This is just a fantasy, would have drawbacks, could be gamed, etc.

    1. You could dream bigger: why have EBT or any wealth-transfer at all? No personal welfare, no corporate welfare (this includes welfare to groups like labor unions and ACORN), no state welfare (including foreign aid)…

      1. Sure.

        But I like the idea of taxpayers being allowed to mildly punish ne’er-do-wells.

        That’s my inner nanny. I have all kinds of state planning ideas that I dream up, too.

        I have to lean libertarian to keep that urge in check.

  6. Meowmeowbeenz used to be funny…

  7. The social justice warriors, busybodies, and agitators of the world approve.

  8. This is coming, like it or not. Multidimensional, not a single score. Couple it with facial /body recognition tech and something like google glass with wifi, and you’ll see a mugger (or a potential mate) coming a block away. One of several aspects I haven’t seen discussed in any detail are the algorithms that weight the reviewer’s own reliability in the ratings given. The core is “math” using more objective verification points as anchors, that will separate bias, lies, commercially-motivated bombing, emotionality, etc. from clean ratings that a high %age of other users would agree with. This is what’s missing from Ebay’s crude and coercive ratings, for example, and what Yelp is doing with “non-recommended” reviews though the hard-sell Yelp gives business owners makes their whole platform suspect. The evolved system will consist of vetted honest and objective raters assigning values, and comments, that even the hotheads, liars, morons, and sociopaths among us can rely on, while they themselves have no impact on the system. Some people who regularly run for office won’t even be able to show their faces in public. And, face it, forums like this where clever fools hide behind anonymity will draw little interest.

    1. I have designed a system with the math you are talking about. It’s at – and it’s basically the same math as Google’s page rank.

  9. Sounds like a world where no normal human ever runs for office (feature or bug? can’t decide) or starts a company or does anything for fear that somewhere down the line some ingrate outs him for playing too much NHL ’94 in his youth. We’ll be left with nothing but narcissists and nutjobs (Trump, both instances).

  10. I don’t know how this starts and ends but anyway thanks for sharing it
    Happy New Year 2016 HD Images

  11. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is welcome to step up to the wood chipper in my backyard.

  12. the authors suggest we need an open source, decentralized reputation system, Ala bitcoin. I have built just that and invite you to read about it here.

    it avoids the problem if people gaming it with fake reviews by creating personalized reviews. When you look at a score for person X, the system only incorporates reviews from people you’ve positively reviewers, and those they have positively reviewed, etc. Check it out and let me know what you think!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.