In this first post, I intentionally didn't say a lot about how rating software could help our current methods of rating information or how it would work, because I had a lot to say about how we rate information now, and I hoped to keep the focus on that (and separate the discussion from talks on a rating system itself, since it's likely more controversial and logically distinct).
I probably should have been clearer on this point in my closing section, because most of the post comments are still based on expectations of how a rating system might work and a discussion of it's potential/perceived flaws.
Maybe I can take that to mean that there's relatively little disagreement in my interpretation of how we rate information today, which I suppose is a good thing, if it means we have some consensus agreement on much of the information shared so far.
Anyways, my next post will explore some of the concerns you've raised about potential implementations of a rating system.
What about the Bridgewater/Ray Dalio method? Have you heard of it before? It might be interesting to you.
Looking forward to your next post.
I hadn't heard of it, but it does seem to have correspondences with the rating systems I'm envisioning.
I should also add I've found portions of many of my own ideas espoused by other people in other research literature when I started doing literature searches, sometimes with very similar ideas, even down to shared ideas about specific mathematical techniques that might be useful to analyze web of trust data.
But back to the Bridgwater method, updating this type of rating system based on performance is also possible in most information domains and IMO designs for a rating system should include plans for allowing feedback on current results to influence future results. Admittedly measuring performance won't always be clear cut in all domains, and will probably depend on Darwinian theory to some extent as well.