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 1,901–2,000 of 2,164
Self-Organized Service Negotiation for Collaborative Decision Making
Zhang, B., Huang, Z., & Zheng, Z. (2014) · The Scientific World JOURNAL · doi:10.1155/2014/814065
“Particularly, the trust computation is comprised of three steps: the belief computation, the reputation ranking, and the recommendation-based trust computation.”
BackgroundA Novel Trust Model Based on Final Price for Online Reputation System
Wang, L., & Zhang, W. (2006) · International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management · doi:10.1109/icsssm.2006.320560
Research on Reputation Field Model and Referenced Reputation Calculation Model on C2C Market
Yue, Y., & Gao, J. (2009) · WASE International Conference on Information Engineering · doi:10.1109/icie.2009.210
Smith, E. O., Griggs, K., Harris, R. A., Lippincott, G., Macdonald, S., Robbins, K., Rodman, L., Sawyer, P. R., Spinuzzi, C., & Williams, J. (2000) · Technical Communication Quarterly
Providing a Trustworthy Trading Environment with a New Authentication Protocol in Online Auctions
Sai, Y. (2010) · Contemporary Management Research · doi:10.7903/cmr.1166
“While reputation-rating systems have been receiving positive feedback from users, researchers quickly pointed out that there are several problems in the design of current systems, and significant challenges remain (Malaga, 2001; Resnick, Zeckhauser, Friedman, & Kuwabara, 2000).”
BackgroundCIPHER TALK - Encrypted Instant Messaging in Mobile Networks
Ganagadurga, M., Chandrasekaran, G., & Ariva, S. (2007) · International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Multimedia Applications (ICCIMA) · doi:10.1109/iccima.2007.366
Research of Security Strategies for a Novel Ad Hoc Network
Chun-sheng, W. (2010) · International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and Technologies (PDCAT) · doi:10.1109/pdcat.2010.62
Reliable object rating framework for content sharing system
Shi, J., Zhang, H., Yu, X., & Zhai, J. (2011) · doi:10.1109/css.2011.6058567
“Generally, the previous studies on identifying deceptive voting behaviors mainly focused on the reputation models [4-5].”
BackgroundAnalyzing an adaptive reputation metric for anonymity systems
Das, A., Borisov, N., & Caesar, M. (2014) · doi:10.1145/2600176.2600187
ChatterCrop: Reaping the benefits of online product reviews
Sharma, N., Khopkar, T., & Otterbacher, J. (2007) · Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/meet.1450440246
Trust Management for Mobile Media Distribution
Ege, R. K. (2013) · Engineering · doi:10.4236/eng.2013.512112
“Trust can be built by either a trusted third party [1] or by community-based feedback from past experiences [2] in a self-regulating system.”
BackgroundPresent Scenario of Recommendation System in Web
Vasukipriya, S., Kumar, T. V., & Sumriddetchkajorn, S. (2013) · International Journal of Computer Applications
A Longitudinal Study on e-Auction Adoption
Fang, K., & Tu, C.-C. (2008) · International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/wicom.2008.2236
Effects of Evaluation Information Disclosure in E-Commerce Systems
Murakata, K., & Matsuo, T. (2010) · IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC) · doi:10.1109/cec.2010.20
“1 Introduction To reduce the effect of imcomplete and asymmetric information in e-shopping site, it provides an evaluation system to evaluate sellers/buyers from buyers/sellers [1][2][3].”
BackgroundA secure trust and reputation system
Spitz, S. (2012) · University Library BOCHUM (Ruhr University Bochum)
Dladlu, N., & Ekabua, O. O. (2013) · IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science
An Economic Approach to Consumer Product Ratings
Beckett, D. (2013) · doi:10.7907/00ee-kp91
Modeling and evaluating credibility of web applications
Guimarães, S., Pereira, A. C. M., Silva, A., et al. (2011) · doi:10.1145/1964114.1964117
“It is important to explain that, despite the problems of reputation systems [12], it is necessary to use feedback information to measure the user opinion of a service that can be described by different characteristics that we denote credibility attributes in our model.”
BackgroundA Downlink Fairness Mechanism for Selfish Nodes in Multi-Hop Wireless Backhaul Networks
Lee, J.-F., & Chen, X. (2010) · IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference · doi:10.1109/wcnc.2010.5506493
“, [12-16]), where the behavior of each node is monitored and”
BackgroundDynamic Reputation Rating Mechanism for Social Content Curation Services
Cho, J., Kang, H.-S., & Kim, S. (2015) · Indian Journal of Science and Technology · doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i18/77714
Hybrid FPMS: A New Fairness Protocol Management Scheme for Community Wireless Mesh Networks
Widanapathirana, C. (2011) · KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems · doi:10.3837/tiis.2011.11.002
“Reputation is a node rating concept inspired by online auctioning systems [18, 21] that provide a means of obtaining a quality rating of a participant of transaction.”
BackgroundA Novel MAC layer-based Reputation System for MANETs
MonishaJ., H., & Rhymend Uthariaraj, V. (2013) · International Journal of Computer Applications · doi:10.5120/13880-1772
Yoo, B., Lee, G., & Lee, B. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1922073
A Trust Based Information Dissemination Model for Evaluating the Effect of Deceptive Data
Hu, Y., Xiao, Z., & Panda, B. (2007) · Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2007.43
Modeling Reputation Scheme in P2P File-Sharing by Stochastic Activity Networks
Zhang, P., & Helvik, B. E. (2009) · IEEE Intl Conf on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, Intl Conf on Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, Intl Conf on Cloud and Big Data Computing, Intl Conf on Cyber Science and Technology Congress (DASC/PiCom/CBDCom/CyberSciTech) · doi:10.1109/dasc.2009.57
“In most cases, reputation schemes [2], [3] are implemented.”
BackgroundAções de comunicação das empresas hoteleiras nas redes sociais e a sua perceção pelos utilizadores
Alves, D. A. (2013) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)
Attaoui, N., Essaaidi, M., Paprzycki, M., et al. (2014) · International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI) · doi:10.1109/csci.2014.126
Enabling Fast Bootstrap of Reputation in P2P Mobile Networks
Cascella, R. G. (2009) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/aina.2009.121
Study on the determinants of life netrepreneurs' reputation based on content analysis
Zhao, X., Yang, X. F., Shan, X., et al. (2011) · International Conference on Consumer Electronics, Communications and Networks (CECNet) · doi:10.1109/cecnet.2011.5768271
“As a viable way to solve those problem, Resnick presents the online reputation system-a new trust mechanism for building and maintaining online trust between consumers and online merchants[2][3].”
BackgroundDesigning Virtual Communities to support E-Commerce adoption 1
Angehrn, A. A., Nabeth, T., & Subirana, B. (2008)
Guaranteeing performance through fairness in peer-to-peer file-sharing and streaming systems
Nieh, J., & Sherman, A. (2010)
Personalized Trust Management in Decision Making: A Dynamic Clustering Approach
Papamichail, G. P., & Papamichail, D. P. (2004) · Journal of Computing and Information Technology · doi:10.2498/cit.2004.01.04
Models and algorithms for event-driven networks
Thompson, B. (2014) · doi:10.7282/t39z9306
Rail Sensor Testbed Program: Active Agents in Containers for Transport Chain Security
Minden, G. J., Frost, V. S., Evans, J., et al. (2011)
A Multidimensional Framework Model of Credit Management System on E-commerce
Yuan, D., & Lu, T. (2009) · International Conference on Management of e-Commerce and e-Government · doi:10.1109/icmecg.2009.91
Ajoku, P. N., & Eng, B. T. (2005) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh)
A MAS security framework implementing reputation based policies and owners access control
Vitabile, S., Milici, G., Scolaro, S., et al. (2006) · doi:10.1109/aina.2006.33
“Most of the reputation systems proposed in literature or in use in real world commercial systems suffer of at least one problem related to the following issues [1], [4], [6] and [9]: 1.”
BackgroundBartels, J. (2015) · Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey)
Stahl, F., & Freudenschuss, M. (2006) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2006.1
“He showed the significance of online reputation reporting systems as an important quality signalling and quality control mechanism in online trading communities (Kollock 1999; Resnick, Zeckhauser, Friedman, & Kuwabara, 2000; Dellarocas, 2001).”
BackgroundKey Management Scheme Based on Threshold for Heterogeneous Wireless Networks
Wang, X., & Zhao, W. (2011) · International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/wicom.2011.6040158
“We assume the existence of a reputation system [6].”
BackgroundConfidence-based Trustworthiness of Acquaintance Peers in Peer-to-Peer Overlay Networks
Watanabe, K., Nakajima, Y., Hayashibara, N., et al. (2007) · International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops · doi:10.1109/icdcsw.2007.29
“In the paper [10], reputation systems have been provided for building trust through social control by utilizing community-based feedback on peers’ past experiences to make recommendation and judgment on transactions.”
Final Report-Rail Sensor Testbed Program: Active Agents in Containers for Transport Chain Security
Minden, G. J., Frost, V. S., Evans, J., et al. (2011) · doi:10.21236/ada539038
Trust Management Model and Evaluation Method for Online Travel
Cui, W.-J., Wang, H., Sui, Q., et al. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92719-8_43
When the Omerta Is Broken: Sociomateriality and the History of Hazing in French Universities
Lambrix, H. (2014) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137432124_8
ON COLLABORATIVE INFORMATION SPREADING VIA RANDOMIZED GOSSIP
Fernandess, Y. (2009)
ONLINE COMMUNITIES AND OC BUILDING - A REVIEW OF DEFINITIONS AND BEST PRACTICES
Kindsmüller, M. C., Allee, R., & Milz, J. G. (2010)
Design and Analysis of Crowdsourcing Mechanisms
Ho, C.-J. (2015) · eScholarship (California Digital Library)
Kong, L., Kim, D. J., & Ferrin, D. L. (2008)
On the cyber-reputation of governments
Franke, U. (2013) · The International Review of Information Ethics · doi:10.29173/irie340
Securing Video Delivery to the Android Platform
Ege, R. K. (2012) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)
The Pursuit of Quality Outputs – The Assessment of the Output of Centralized Reputation SystemsPreprint
Liu, L. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2000070
“Online Reputation Systems collect people’s opinions on products, transactions or events as reputation information (ratings or text reviews), and then aggregate this information and disseminate it to the public, so that other people can use the reputation information as a reference to make decisions (Dellarocas, 2003;…”
BackgroundUm Estudo sobre Reputação baseado no Grau de Concordância entre os Membros de Comunidades de Prática
Cruz, C. C. P., da Motta, C. L. R., Santoro, F. M., et al. (2008) · doi:10.5753/cbie.sbie.2008.675-684
Luottamuksenhallinta avoimissa palveluverkoissa
Ruohomaa, S., & Kutvonen, L. (2006)
Optimization Techniques for Multiple Centrality Computations
von der Weth, C., Böhm, K., & Hütter, C. (2012) · Lecture notes in social networks · doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-1346-2_2
Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Contemporary Electronic Commerce Research
Yu, K., Lee, Y.-D., & McLee, Y. (2008) · doi:10.7118/jhss.200806.0047
Exploiting the `Web of Trust' to improve efficiency in collaborative networksPreprint
Sekar, S., & Maillé, P. (2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1202.2888
“It is pertinent to remark here that we are concerned only with the trust between pairs of users rather than global trust better known as reputation [32].”
Backgroundde Almeida, W. G. (2012) · doi:10.26512/2012.03.d.11378
“Um sistema de reputação coleta, agrega e distribui feedbacks sobre o comportamento dos participantes do passado e desencoraja o comportamento injusto [51].”
BackgroundFirm Growth and Reputation Effects in Online Retail Markets: Short Run and Long Run EvidencePreprint
Saastamoinen, J. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2060216
Usability improvement and application of data mining
平手, 勇. (2008) · Medical Entomology and Zoology
Raghavan, P. (2006) · Latin American Web Congress · doi:10.1109/laweb.2005.18
New Technologies and the Value of Information Systems
Ghasemkhani, H. (2013) · ResearchWorks at the University of Washington (University of Washington)
RRNN-AODV: A Reputation Routing Based on Nearest Neighbor in Mobile ad hoc Networks
Tamizarasu, K., & Rajaram, M. (2012) · International Journal of Soft Computing · doi:10.3923/ijscomp.2012.141.145
Research on Application of Digital Platform Based on Community Network Marketing
Li, Z. (2015) · International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering (ESSAEME) · doi:10.2991/essaeme-15.2015.89
The Effect of Internet Self-efficacy and Trust on Acceptance of The Knowledge from Wikipedia
Lee, H.-Y., & 안현철 (2011) · The e-Business Studies · doi:10.15719/geba.12.4.201111.137
Liu, L. (2014) · Journal of Information and Computational Science · doi:10.12733/jics20103078
“Sometimes it is also referred to as reputation [14].”
BackgroundInfluentialDadhich, P., Dutta, K., & Govil, M. C. (2016) · International Journal of Security and Networks · doi:10.1504/ijsn.2016.075072
THE ANALYSIS FOR THE TRUST POLICY OF GRID SYSTEM BASED ON AGENT BASED VIRTUAL MARKET SIMULATION
Hwang, J., Lee, C. H., Choi, I.-J., et al. (2006) · doi:10.1142/9789812773470_0012
Trusted Querying over Wireless Sensor Networks and Network Security Visualization
Abuaitah, G. R. (2009) · OhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network)
Cooperative and Reliable Packet-Forwarding
Hod, B. (2005)
Vassilakopoulou, P., Tsagkas, V., & Marmaras, N. (2011) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23635-8_31
An Agent-based Architecture to Recommend Educational Video.
Rosaci, D., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2014)
Rad, P. A., Edzen, S., & Samuelsson, S. (2012) · International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies · doi:10.5220/0003903005310539
Value Matrix and Domain Map - Boundary Objects for Systemic Innovation
Johansson, B. B. (2012) · NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives
Private Information Shielding Service for Overcoming Privacy Risk in Recommender System.
Lee, C. H., & Hwang, J. (2005) · WEIS
A Highly Adaptable Reputation System Based on Dirichlet Distribution
Xiao, X., Chen, L., & Li, Y. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11119-3_33
for Success: An Experiment Comparing Two eBay Businesses1
Gregg, D. G. (2016)
Trust Enabled CARE Resource Broker
Rangasamy, K., & Somasundaram, T. S. (2016) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30348-2_2
Incentive Schemes for Mobile Peer-to-Peer Systems and Free Riding Problem: A SurveyPreprint
Mishra, R. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.07785
Incentives for Resource Sharing in Ad Hoc Networks
Antoniadis, P. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-715-7.ch011
Fostering Trust in E-Commerce Via Seals and Insurance Solutions
Loebbecke, C. (2003) · Evolaris · doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-6088-6_20
Security in Semantic Interoperation
Zhao, Y., Wang, X., & Halang, W. A. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-650-1.ch025
Identifying and minimizing the effects of malicious behavior in SERF
Natarajan, S. (2005)
Kuratko, D. F., Brown, T. J., & Wadell, M. (2015) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s1048-473620150000025002 · Cited by 1
Game Theoretic Stimulation Mechanisms
Xiao, L. (2015) · Springer briefs in electrical and computer engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24292-7_5
Technologien und Strategien Zum Aufbau Von Vertrauen Im Electronic Commerce
Patton, M. A., & Jøsang, A. (2003) · Evolaris · doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-6088-6_4
Hwang, Y., & Yuan, S.-T. D. (2008) · Advances in e-business research series · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-831-4.ch003
An Overview of Online Trust Derivatives for E-Commerce Adoption
Mahmood, O. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-845-1.ch087
Observation-Based Trust Management for Services in Mobile Networks
Paul, A., Jacob, C., Pfeffer, H., et al. (2010) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-682-7.ch013
Wong, A. (2010) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-901-9.ch012
Effort-Accuracy Trade-Off in Using Knowledge Management Systems
Poston, R. S., & Speier, C. (2010) · Advances in end user computing series/Advances in end user computing (AEUC) book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-687-7.ch001
“However, future users may be misled if the ratings do not accurately reflect the content quality (Dellarocas, 2003; Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundA Framework of Two Tiers to Enhance Trust in Recommender Systems
Noy, A., & Dan-Gur, Y. (2009) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230274235_5
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
