Personal reputation online?

June 22, 2009

There’s a really great discussion starter over on the Three Minds blog which I just found thanks to my Twitter network. Marshall writes about how the value of Google’s PageRank system is slipping because of the increasing value to a content-driven, rather than publisher-driven, model.

Basically, he argues that reputation should be given to individual articles or pieces of content based on the reputation of the writer, rather

Don't build a wall to the shy contributors. ;)

Don't build a wall to the shy contributors. ;)

than basing value on the publisher/forum. I see the argument, but I also counter (as you may see in comments on the blog post) that the already growing popularity of ghost-writers among the heaviest individual publishers (like Guy Kawasaki or various celebrities using tools like Twitter) makes such a thing dangerous.

First, personal page rank would make it possible for the most recognizable names (within any respective topic area) to dominate conversation to an even greater extent.  It would also create an incentive to build a network of ghostwriters under a single name (though it may not be popular in the community I see few ways that an unscrupulous person with frequent publishing that’s even somewhat better than mediocre wouldn’t gain enough reputation to dominate the market), as opposed to having loose associations of people who may hold varying opinions voicing them publicly under their own byline.

Finally, I believe that personal page rank would make many of the infrequent (and sometimes refreshing) contributors intimidated to continue their only occasional responses.  I believe the true power in social media comes from collaboration of those who contribute frequently with those who may not feel moved to share their opinions as frequently or publicly and who, in their infrequency, offer the occasional fantastic zinger or new point of view.  I think encouraging MORE contributions from these less chatty peers is an important pursuit as social media ages.

I hope that’s been a good thought-starter.  I’d love to hear feedback and counterpoint!

Entry Filed under: Opinion. Tags: , , .

1 Comment Add your own

  • 1. implantingideas  |  June 24, 2009 at 1:58 am

    Social media has come a long way but it has been abused by marketeers. When I log on Twitter all I see is desperate tweets promoting the products nothing wrong in that but there has to be a fine line on what constitutes a meaningful message and marketing propaganda.

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Me! on Twitter

About Me

I'm a student in the Annenberg Program on Online Communities at the University of Southern California. I geek out easily on use cases and talking about almost any area of communications - which is fortunate since I have chosen communications (PR, online, marketing, anything really) as my career.

I read too much, craft too little and find try to remember to find big joy in small things. Oh, and the username DwriteN is reminiscent of an assigned e-mail address long ago.

Blogroll

Classmates

Recent Posts

BrazenCareerist

RSS Feed

Tags

business class communication community creative culture customer service digital public relations education event experience future goals ideas internet interpersonal relationship introduction job hunting learning Life marketing media memory mobile moving news Opinion organizations PR practice PR Basics public public relations relocate reputation school social media technology tools transparency Twitter UCLA USC web 2.0 work

Recent Comments

Internet PR on Intarwebs changes our min…
Twitter Trackbacks f… on Intarwebs changes our min…
Jubaloo Mobile … on Connect the spots
Andrew Schrock on Widgets?
implantingideas on Personal reputation onlin…

NetworkedBlogs