The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 9 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Reputation systems
Open accessAbstract
T he Internet offers vast new opportunities to interact with total strangers. These interactions can be fun, informative, even profitable. But they also involve risk. Is the advice of a self-proclaimed expert at expertcentral.com reliable? Will an unknown dotcom site or eBay seller ship items promptly with appropriate packaging? Will the product be the same one described online?
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
30 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 5 Sources not found · 2 No full text of the sources
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the overall rate of successful transactions remains astonishingly high for a market as”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · hedged
“ripe with the possibility of largescale fraud and deceit”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] 5. Kollock, P. The production of trust in online markets. In Advances in Group Processes, vol. 16, E. Lawler, M. Macy, S. Thyne, and H. Walker, Eds. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1999; see also www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/f aculty/kollock/papers/online_trust.htm.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first is that people may not bother to provide feedback at all.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Such premiums are observed in auctions in auctions of coins and computer chips on eBay [3,6,7].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] 3. Bajari, P. and Hortacsu, A. Winner's curse, reserve prices, and endogenous entry: Empirical insights from eBay auctions; see www.stanford.edu/ ~bajari/wp/auction/ebay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [6] 6. Lucking-Reiley, D., Bryan, D., Prasad, N., and Reeves, D. Pennies from eBay: The determinants of price in online auctions; see www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/reiley/papers/PenniesFromEBay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [7] 7. Houser, D. and Wooders, J. Reputation in auctions: Theory and evidence from eBay; see bpa.arizona.edu/~jwooders/ebay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third is the difficulty of ensuring honest reports.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these systems help people decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior, and deter participation by those who are unskilled or dishonest.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these systems help people decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior, and deter participation by those who are unskilled or dishonest.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reputation systems seek to establish the shadow of the future to each transaction by creating an expectation that other people will look back on it.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Game-theory analysis demonstrates that there are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of reputation systems when participants are allowed to start over with new names [4].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] 4. Friedman, E. and Resnick, P. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms; see www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/papers/identifiers/index.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second difficulty in distributing feedback stems from the lack of portability from system to system.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Second, the expectation of reciprocity or retaliation in future interactions creates an incentive for good behavior.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] 2. Axelrod, R. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York, 1984.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite their theoretical and practical difficulties, it is reassuring that reputation systems appear to perform reasonably well.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: eBay's high rate of successful transactions is attributable to its reputation system.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At eBay, for example, a stream of buyers interacts with the same seller.They may never buy an item from the seller again, but by sharing their opinions about the seller via the Feedback Forum, they construct a meaningful history of the seller.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If buyers do behave this way, the sellers' reputations will affect their future sales.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite this promise, significant challenges remain in the operating phases of such systems: eliciting, distributing, and aggregating feedback.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Over time, high-quality sellers would desert the market.Eventually, only the lowest-quality sellers would remain, a dynamic economist George Akerlof memorialized as the”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
“market for lemons”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] 1. Akerlof, G. The market for 'lemons': Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quart. J. Econom. 84 (1970), 488-500. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even then, fear of retaliatory negative feedback or simply a desire to avoid further unpleasant interactions may keep a dissatisfied buyer quiet.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systems that rely on the participation of large numbers of individuals accumulate trust simply by operating effectively over time.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, sellers with stellar reputations may enjoy a premium on their services; some users may be willing to pay for the security and comfort of high-quality services.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of building trust, a boost in the quantity of information compensates for a significant reduction in its quality.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In particular, newcomers (those with no feedback) should always be distrusted until they have somehow paid their dues, either through an entry fee or by accepting more risk or worse prices while developing their reputations.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] 4. Friedman, E. and Resnick, P. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms; see www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/papers/identifiers/index.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These simple numerical ratings fail to convey important subtleties of online interactions; for example, Did the feedback come from low-value transactions?What were the reputations of the people providing the feedback?”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internet services operate on a vastly larger scale”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
“than Main Street and permit virtually anonymous interactions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Long-lived entities that inspire an expectation of future interaction;”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Today's reputation systems, by contrast, shouldn't work in theory.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Use of feedback to guide trust decisions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With clear reputation markers, low-quality sellers get lower prices, leaving a healthier market with a variety of prices and quality of service.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior to the Internet, such questions were answered, in part, through personal and corporate reputations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Strangers lack known past histories or the prospect of future interaction, and they are not subject to a network of informed individuals who would punish bad and reward good behavior.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These interactions can be fun, informative, even profitable.But they also involve risk.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Capture and distribution of feedback about current interactions (such information must be visible in the future); and”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Internet can vastly accelerate and add structure to the process of capturing and distributing information.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One party could blackmail another, threatening to post negative feedback unrelated to actual performance.At the other extreme, in order to accumulate positive feedback, a group of sellers might collaborate and rate one another positively, artificially inflating their individual reputations.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Future buyers, lacking personal histories with particular sellers, may still base their buying decisions on a sufficiently extensive public history.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When agreeing to be rated is optional (such as when registering as a retailer at bizrate.com), doing so is likely an indication of higher-quality services, even before ratings are available.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if all reporting were complete and honest, users would find it virtually impossible to utilize the torrents of information they receive on other participants, given the lack of satisfactory summary statistics.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Limited distribution of feedback limits its effectiveness; the future casts a shadow on only a single online arena, not on many.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Buyers provide and rely on feedback in reputation systems.
“provide and rely on feedback-isolated interactions take on attributes of long-term relationships.”
The paper relies on this without support.
eBay's high rate of successful transactions is attributable to its reputation system.
“The high rate of successful transactions is attributerd by eBay to its reputation system, called the Feedback Forum.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Resnick et al. (2000) stated that the lack of reputation portability is problematic as ''[l]imited distribution of feedback limits its effectiveness'' (p. 48).”
From In Stars We Trust – A Note on Reputation Portability Between Digital Platforms (2022) · cites this paper as Resnick et al. 2000
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The growth of e-auctions and other forms of e-commerce is based, to a considerable degree, on reputation and trust 5-10 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“Past research has argued that reputation systems and user-generated reviews may have the primary purpose of allowing users to learn more about each other before engaging in any interactions or transactions, acting as a monitoring and policing system [5,66,67].”
From Digital Identity: The effect of trust and reputation information on user judgement in the Sharing Economy (2018) · cites this paper as [67]
Citations
Cites
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Nielsen, R. P., & Axelrod, R. (1985) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257983 · Cited by 6,517
The Winner's Curse, Reserve Prices, and Endogenous Entry: Empirical Insights from eBay Auctions
Bajari, P., Hortaçsu, A., & Hortacsu, A. (2003) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1593721 · Cited by 1,041
PENNIES FROM EBAY: THE DETERMINANTS OF PRICE IN ONLINE AUCTIONS*
Lucking‐Reiley, D., Bryan, D., Prasad, N., & Reeves, D. M. (2007) · Journal of Industrial Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2007.00309.x · Cited by 550
(1999) · Advances in group processes · Cited by 426
Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (2000) · Advances in group processes · doi:10.1016/s0882-6145(2000)17 · Cited by 247
How not to build an online market: the sociology of market microstructure
Kollock, P., & Braziel, E. R. (n.d.) · Advances in Group Processes · doi:10.1016/s0882-6145(06)23011-x
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,401–1,500 of 2,164
Effects of Increasing Users' Attention on Cost in Software Download Interfaces on the Internet
Dini, G., Foglia, P., Prete, C. A., et al. (2007) · doi:10.1109/iti.2007.4283775 · Cited by 3
GAUR: a method to detect Sybil groups in peer-to-peer overlays
Haribabu, K., Hota, C., & Paul, A. (2012) · International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing · doi:10.1504/ijguc.2012.047765 · Cited by 3
“In this attack, an attacker influences the reputation of the system and objects and also carries out malicious attacks like disrupting the overlay operations.”
BackgroundA Review of Online Trading and User Perceptions of Usability and Trust
Davies, R., & Cunningham, S. (2012) · Journal of Advanced Internet of Things · doi:10.7726/jait.2012.1001r · Cited by 2
Maintaining trustworthiness of service compositions
Malik, Z., & Medjahed, B. (2010) · International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT) · doi:10.1145/1943628.1943651 · Cited by 3
Trust Metrics Evaluation for Peer-to-Peer Systems
Balasubramanian, K. (2014) · Cited by 3
HMM for reputation computation in VANET
Shrivastava, A., Sharma, K. D., & Chaurasia, B. K. (2016) · International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation · doi:10.1109/ccaa.2016.7813806 · Cited by 3
“Results and simulations show that the predicted reputation values are very close to the actual reputation value within a very short duration.”
TNRAS: Tor Nodes Reliability Analysis Scheme
Wen-zhen, Z., Lu, T., & Du, Z. (2021) · doi:10.1145/3507509.3507512 · Cited by 3
“The modified exponential weighted moving average (EWMA) based on the Tor network feature is used to detect the usage of the real-time node, which combines a dynamic adjustment method [18] to punish the "behaviour wobble” nodes in Tor and the feedback to simulate nodes’ behaviour.”
MethodCollusion Detection and Trust Management for Indoor Navigation System With Crowdsourcing
Li, W., Wen, M., Su, Z., et al. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2022.3197639 · Cited by 3
Electronic Word-of-Mouth and Tourist Satisfaction in Rural Tourism in Schist Villages
Santos, M., Rita, P., Moro, S., et al. (2023) · Advances in hospitality, tourism and the services industry (AHTSI) book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7242-2.ch004 · Cited by 3
The impact of fraud on reputation systems
Krügel, J. P., & Paetzel, F. (2024) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2024.01.013 · Cited by 5
Adler, P. (2024) · Regional Studies · doi:10.1080/00343404.2024.2306326 · Cited by 4
“This result may be explained by the tendency for consumers to trust those who have disclosed more biographical information (Resnick et al., 2000).”
An Intervention for Increasing Intention to Post Online Customer Reviews
Yang, S., & Kruschke, J. K. (2024) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1177/10949968241228198 · Cited by 3
“A crucial component of e-commerce is online customer reviews (Dellarocas 2003; Kenney and Zysman 2016; Resnick et al. 2000), which facilitate trust in transactions and can greatly affect sales (for reviews, see Bajari and Hortaçsu 2004; Diekmann et al. 2014; Resnick et al. 2000).”
Bouchiha, M. A., Ghamri-Doudane, Y. M., Rabah, M., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57853-3_5 · Cited by 3
Lambert, C., Saha, K., & Chandrasekharan, E. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713830 · Cited by 12
“Importantly, gift-giving is a means to build reputation which social computing literature touts as a clear signal of desired behaviors [57], an incentive for good behavior [77], and a tool to build trust and engagement among users [78].”
Luo, X., Wang, C. A., & Ge, L. (2025) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1177/10591478251327750 · Cited by 3
“Reputation and social image are well-documented motivators for prosocial behavior (e.g., B ́ enabou and Tirole, 2006; Böhm and Regner, 2013; Karlan and McConnell, 2014; Resnick et al., 2000; Roberts et al., 2006).”
Noise or Quality? Cross-Nested Hierarchical Effects of Culture on Online Ratings
Mattson, T. (2017) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.04025 · Cited by 3
From Big Data to Knowledge: Issues of Provenance, Trust, and Scientific Computing Integrity
Huang, J. (2018) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata.2018.8622561 · Cited by 4
“• Reputation-based [20], [46], [59], [65], [66], [69], which are first developed in information retrieval and eCommerce, and then extended to more general applications; • Recommendation based and social networks based [1], [27], [37], [45], [67], [78], [79]; • Evidence-based trust [42], [74].”
BackgroundA-Cure: An accurate information reconstruction from inaccurate data sources
Xu, J., Zadorozhny, V., & Grant, J. (2020) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2020.101508 · Cited by 3
A Privacy-Preserving and Robust Reputation System Based on Blockchain
Sun, S., Liu, Y., & Guo, G. (2019) · IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications (ISPA) · doi:10.1109/ispa-bdcloud-sustaincom-socialcom48970.2019.00096 · Cited by 3
An epistemological analysis of the use of reputation as evidence
Páez, A. (2021) · The International Journal of Evidence & Proof · doi:10.1177/13657127211011219 · Cited by 3
“Peer-to-peer reputation systems are used to create and promote trust among strangers, usually in online environments (Resnik et al., 2000).”
BackgroundPeszynski, K. (2003) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-056-1.ch008 · Cited by 3
Online Reputation Systems: The Cost of Attack of PageRank
Clausen, A. P. (2003) · Cited by 3
Secure Trust-based Cooperative Communications in Wireless Multi-Hop Networks
Wang, K., Wu, M., & She, S. (2010) · Sciyo eBooks · doi:10.5772/10172 · Cited by 3
Location-Based Social Networking and its Impact on Trust in Relationships
Fusco, S. J., Abbas, R., Michael, K., & Aloudat, A. (2012) · Cited by 3
Control Theory Based Rating Recommendation for Reputation Systems
Meng, K., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., et al. (2006) · IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC) · doi:10.1109/icnsc.2006.1673135 · Cited by 3
Personalisierung der Internetsuche
Riemer, K., & Brüggemann, F. (2007) · WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK · doi:10.1007/s11576-007-0033-6 · Cited by 3
Density-based measure of reputation of sellers in online auctions
Morzy, M. (2006) · Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences · Cited by 3
Mining E-commerce feedback comments for trust evaluation
Emayakumaari, T., & Ananthi, G. (2015) · IEEE International Conference on Engineering and Technology · doi:10.1109/icetech.2015.7275028 · Cited by 3
E-Marketplaces for Professional e-Services: Trust, Reputation and Performance
Francesconi, A., & Dossena, C. (2012) · Physica-Verlag eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2789-7_6 · Cited by 3
Designing CSCW system for integrated, web-based, cotton cultivation services
Pontikakos, C. M., Zakynthinos, G., & Tsiligiridis, T. A. (2005) · Operational Research · doi:10.1007/bf02944170 · Cited by 3
Collective ratings for online labor markets
Zhang, Y., & van der Schaar, M. (2012) · Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing · doi:10.1109/allerton.2012.6483242 · Cited by 3
Sasitharagai, M., Renuga, A., Padmashree, A., et al. (2012) · doi:10.1109/aicera.2012.6306737 · Cited by 3
Autonomous and collaborative learning environment for vocabulary acquirement
Kaneko, K., Hasegawa, K., Jin, X., et al. (2008) · doi:10.1109/iti.2008.4588398 · Cited by 3
A propagation model of reputation query request
Sun, H., & Yu, H. (2010) · doi:10.1109/icime.2010.5477944 · Cited by 3
“More and more researchers have paid attention on the metric of the evaluation of the reputation and the method of computing [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].”
BackgroundOravec, J. A. (2004) · Knowledge, technology & policy/Knowledge in society/Knowledge, technology, & policy · doi:10.1007/s12130-004-1006-3 · Cited by 3
Business driven optimisation of service compositions
Elshaafi, H., McGibney, J., & Botvich, D. (2011) · International Conference on Next Generation Web Services Practices · doi:10.1109/nwesp.2011.6088163 · Cited by 3
Antin, J., Churchill, E. F., & Chen, B.-C. (2011) · doi:10.1145/1963192.1963332 · Cited by 3
“Reputation is a substitute for direct experience with others [11] — it gives an individual a basis upon which to decide whether another user or his content are reliable, useful, or interesting.”
BackgroundA reputation-based approach for consumer protection in Saudi Arabia
Al-Dossari, H. (2012) · International Conference on Computational Aspects of Social Networks (CASoN) · doi:10.1109/cason.2012.6412422 · Cited by 3
“Although recognised techniques have been proposed in the literature for the calculation of reputation [23], [17], [26], these approaches tend to concentrate on manipulating the ratings and do not consider the context within which a rating is given by a consumer.”
BackgroundUngar, L., Leibholz, S. W., & Chaski, C. E. (2011) · IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security · doi:10.1109/ths.2011.6107874 · Cited by 3
“Threats, promises, agreements, predatory or suicidal communications can help build evidence as elements in several types of crime or security breaches.”
BackgroundDeAngelis, D., & Barber, K. S. (2014) · International Journal of Agent Technologies and Systems · doi:10.4018/ijats.2014040102 · Cited by 3
Towards Trustworthy Peer-To-Peer Environments: An Appraisal Analysis Approach
Azzedin, F., & Khwaja, S. (2010) · Journal of Next Generation Information Technology · doi:10.4156/jnit.vol1.issue1.6 · Cited by 3
“Reputation systems [3, 7] provide a way for building trust through social control without trusted third parties.”
BackgroundeBay as the “Terminator”: Determining User Suspension From Feedback Ratings
Hayne, S. C., Wang, H., & Mendonca, S. (2012) · Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10919392.2012.667714 · Cited by 3
E-Commerce Security: A Technical Survey
Tian, Z., Ning-ning, X., & Peng, W. (2008) · doi:10.1109/iita.2008.61 · Cited by 3
“On the reputation system design, Resnick proposes that a reasonable reputation system must have the following three characteristics [19]:1) all entities must be existed for a long time in the system, so as to continue with its interaction in the future; 2) the current interactive appraisal is…”
MethodZhao, J., Ma, Q., Zhang, Y., & Sun, X. (2011) · IEEE International Summer Conference of Asia Pacific Business Innovation and Technology Management (APBITM) · doi:10.1109/apbitm.2011.5996309 · Cited by 3
Modeling and analysis of PeerTrust-like trust mechanisms in P2P Networks
Wang, M., Xu, Z., Zhang, Y., et al. (2012) · Globecom · doi:10.1109/glocom.2012.6503523 · Cited by 3
Trust Assessment for Web Services under Uncertainty
Malik, Z., & Medjahed, B. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17358-5_32 · Cited by 3
“For example, results from game theory demonstrate that there are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of reputation systems when participants are allowed to start over with new names [31].”
ResultComputational Trust Model in Online Auctions
Zhang, W. (2007) · International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/wicom.2007.932 · Cited by 3
“This system collects, distributes, and aggregates feedback about participants’ past behavior so as to stems help people decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior, and deter participation by those who are unskilled or dishonest[1].”
BackgroundUsing Personal Ontology in Evaluating Service Quality
Hung, J.-S., & Liu, A. (2007) · IEEE International Conference on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/scc.2007.125 · Cited by 3
“According to the definition of 'reputation' given in [10], a system must consider that the usage experiences will be kept and the values kept track will determine the outcome of the decision of the participants.”
BackgroundHarnessing Web 2.0 for ERP Implementations
Wu, H., & Cao, L. (2009) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2009.148 · Cited by 3
TiBiD - Trust Building and Matchmaking Support for Virtual Enterprises
Koch, M. R., Möslein, K. M., Reichwald, R., et al. (2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 3
An Alliance Based Reputation Model for Internet Autonomous System Trust Evaluation
Hu, N., Zhu, P., & Zou, P. (2009) · IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications (ISPA) · doi:10.1109/ispa.2009.104 · Cited by 3
“Reputation systems are firstly used to establish trust among members of on-line communities where parties with no prior knowledge of each other use the feedback from their peers to assess the trustworthiness of the peers in the community [7].”
BackgroundTowards an Objective Assessment of Centrality Measures in Reputation Systems
von der Weth, C., & Böhm, K. (2007) · IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC) · doi:10.1109/cec-eee.2007.100 · Cited by 3
An Adaptive Collaborative Filtering Algorithm for Online Reputation Systems
Zuo, M., Li, J., & Liu, G. (2007) · doi:10.1109/sitis.2007.72 · Cited by 3
Novel Approaches to Acquisition and Maintenance of User Model
Andrejko, A. (2009) · Cited by 3
The Invisible Value of Information Systems: Reputation Building in an Online P2P Lending System
Ghasemkhani, H. (2013) · Cited by 3
Christakou, E., & Klimis, G. M. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28897-5_42 · Cited by 3
Designing socio-technical systems for ubiquitous information environments
Singh, R., Wood‐Harper, T., & Wood, R. (2009) · Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) · Cited by 3
A Novel Reputation Model Based on Subjective Logic for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Gu, X., Lin, P. C., & Shi, S. (2012) · Advances in intelligent and soft computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29458-7_77 · Cited by 3
“Rational nodes collect the feedback about participants’ past behaviors, and share them with others to help detect the uncooperative nodes [2].”
BackgroundTrust Development in Peer-to-Peer Environments
Wang, Y. (2010) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-682-7.ch009 · Cited by 3
The Retaliatory Feedback Problem
Malaga, R. A. (2013) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2803-8.ch016 · Cited by 3
Mekouar, S. (2018) · Advances in computer and electrical engineering book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5384-7.ch017 · Cited by 3
A Neural Network to Identify Driving Habits and Compute Car-Sharing Users’ Reputation
Postorino, M. N., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2018) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95095-2_20 · Cited by 3
Sai, Y. (2008) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.007 · Cited by 3
Psychological Identity x Psychological Reputation: How to recommend compatible peers in a work team
Nunes, M. A. S. N., Cerri, S. A., & Blanc, N. (2007) · Cited by 3
Influence of the “benefit of the doubt” in online auctions
Steinhart, Y., Kamins, M. A., & Mazursky, D. (2019) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-019-09497-5 · Cited by 3
Xie, H. L., Li, Y., & Lui, J. C. S. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Internet Technology · doi:10.1145/3400024 · Cited by 3
An evidence‐based iterative content trust algorithm for the credibility of online news
Zeng, G., & Wang, W. (2009) · Concurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.1415 · Cited by 3
Filippi, P. D., Shimony, O., & Tenorio-Fornés, A. (2021) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2021.2.1547 · Cited by 3
Towards a Conceptual Model for Trustworthy Skills Profiles in Online Social Networks
Haselmann, T., Winkelmann, A., & Vossen, G. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9790-6_23 · Cited by 3
“Scalability in this context means that estimates can be gathered from and communicated to a multitude of parties, independent of time and place [17].”
BackgroundPersonalized Composition of Trustful Reputation Systems
Sänger, J., Richthammer, C., Kremser, A., et al. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20810-7_13 · Cited by 3
“’s paper [1] on the use of reputation systems to facilitate trust in Internet transactions, a vast number of reputation systems has been proposed.”
BackgroundTrustable B2C markets on the Semantic Web
Tolksdorf, R., Bizer, C., Eckstein, R., et al. (2004) · MADOC (University of Mannheim) · Cited by 3
Towards Dependable Agent Systems
Nimis, J., Lockemann, P. C., Krempels, K.-H., et al. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/3-540-32062-8_23 · Cited by 3
The implications of shared identity on indirect reciprocity
Bedewi, W., Whitaker, R. M., Colombo, G. B., Allen, S. M., & Dunham, Y. C. (2020) · Journal of Information and Telecommunication · doi:10.1080/24751839.2020.1741858 · Cited by 3
“Furthermore, e-commerce reputation also serves beyond auction settings to signal the quality of product and services (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundTrust and Trustworthiness in Human Behavior and IT Services - Concepts, Definitions and Relations
Bøegh, J. (2014) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43908-1_31 · Cited by 3
Investigating the impact of C2C electronic marketplace quality on trust
Meents, S., & Verhagen, T. (2008) · Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · Cited by 3
A Reputation-Based System for Confidentiality Modeling in Peer-to-Peer Networks
Sorge, C., & Zitterbart, M. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11755593_27 · Cited by 3
Risk assessment models for resource failure in grid computing
Alsoghayer, R. (2011) · White Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · Cited by 3
Examining Metrics for Peer-to-Peer Reputation Systems
Marti, S., & García-Molina, H. (2003) · Cited by 3
Supporting Web-based collaboration between virtual enterprise partners
Bright, D., & Quirchmayr, G. (2004) · Database and Expert Systems Applications · doi:10.1109/dexa.2004.160 · Cited by 3
Uma ontologia funcional de reputação para agentes.
Casare, S. (2005) · doi:10.11606/d.3.2005.tde-22052006-221632 · Cited by 3
Economic Modelling and Incentive Mechanisms for Ecient Resource Provision in Peer-to-Peer Systems
Antoniadis, P. (2006) · Cited by 3
Service Quality Evaluation by Personal Ontology
Lee, C.-H. L., Liu, A., & Hung, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.6688/jise.2009.25.5.1 · Cited by 3
“According to the definition of ‘reputation’ given in [15], a system must consider that the usage experiences will be kept and the values kept track will determine the outcome of the decision of the participants.”
Background(2007) · ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD) · doi:10.1109/snpd.2007.561 · Cited by 3
Decentralized trust-based access control for dynamic collaborative environments
Davis, N. J., Midkiff, S. F., & Adams, W. J. (2006) · Cited by 3
Quality of Service in Wireless Sensor Networks
Pottie, G. J., & Pandya, A. (2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470396360.ch14 · Cited by 3
Preference Uncertainty and Trust in Decision Making
Almutairi, M. S. (2007) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 3
Market-Based Scheduling in Distributed Computing Systems
Stößer, J. (2009) · Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) · doi:10.5445/ir/1000010437 · Cited by 3
A configurable online reputation aggregation system
Li, H. (2008) · uO Research (University of Ottawa) · doi:10.20381/ruor-12344 · Cited by 3
Reputation as a Basis for Trust
Goates, N. (2008) · Cited by 3
Promoting cooperation among strangers to access Internet services from an ad hoc network
Zhu, D., & Mutka, M. W. (2004) · doi:10.1109/percom.2004.1276861 · Cited by 3
Classification of unlabeled online media
Prakash, S. K. A., & Tucker, C. S. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-85608-5 · Cited by 2
The Institutional Diversity of Online E-commerce Platforms in China
Yuan, M., & Lin, W. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-17127-7_13 · Cited by 2
A Reputation-Aware Defense Framework for Strategic Behaviors in Federated Learning
Cai, Y., Xu, J., Lian, Z., Brian, K. C. W., Li, Y., & Xu, J. (2025) · Telecom · doi:10.3390/telecom6030060 · Cited by 4
Cheshire, C., Cook, K. S., & Lampinen, A. (2025) · Handbooks of sociology and social research · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93042-3_18 · Cited by 2
Nhat, D. T., & Teubner, T. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0334630 · Cited by 2
“On platforms that are characterized by a high level of anonymity, ratings support customers in their decisions regarding whom to trust, incentivize trustworthy behavior, and punish low quality and dishonesty [27].”
Maziriri, E. T., Mapuranga, M., Mabuyana, B., Nyagadza, B., & Mandipaka, F. (2026) · Strategic Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.sbr.2025.100042 · Cited by 5
Business Value of Information Sharing and the Role of Emerging Technologies.
Kumar, S. (2009) · ProQuest LLC eBooks · Cited by 2
Community Trust Stores for Peer-to-Peer e-Commerce Applications
Fauzi, A. H., & Taylor, H. (2011) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25327-0_37 · Cited by 2
“Many reputation systems only handle positive reputation reports [9].”
BackgroundTulungan: A Slandering-Resistant Reputation System for Collaborative Web Filtering Systems
Pantola, A. V., Pancho-Festin, S., & Salvador, F. (2013) · International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications · doi:10.5121/ijnsa.2013.5203 · Cited by 2
Analysis of the effect of InfoRanking on content pollution in peer-to-peer systems
Zhang, P., Fotiou, N., Helvik, B. E., et al. (2013) · Security and Communication Networks · doi:10.1002/sec.773 · Cited by 2
“To counteract content pollution in P2P systems, reputation schemes [5–10] have been proposed.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 45-48
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2337430557
- Cited by
- 2,190
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 93 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 111 · 2012: 134
- FWCI
- 145.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (9977999)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- reputation systems, online trust, online interaction, e-commerce, peer reputation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
