Like Yelp, but for human beings.

whatismyname wrote: »

Apparently when the reviewer enters your mobile you'll get a text, including a link to claim your profile.

Until you claim your profile, only positive reviews will be displayed.

Still a horrible idea either way.

Nope, until the person with that phone number claims the profile, only positive reviews will be displayed.

There is nothing to say that the phone number is yours, other than the person submitting the review said it was.

whatismyname wrote: »

Apparently when the reviewer enters your mobile you'll get a text, including a link to claim your profile.

Until you claim your profile, only positive reviews will be displayed.

But what is "positive"?

If someone's a recovering alcoholic and I wanted to destroy them, all I have to do is post about what mad craic they are and how they were the life and soul of my tequila shooters party last weekend.

If someone's a conservative lobbyist, posting about their impressive voting record on LGBT issues wouldn't exactly be something they'd welcome.

There are many ways to write something "positive" that could actually be damaging to the person you were writing it about. Besides, considering the level of expertise shown so far (by which I mean none), my expectations for their programming would be very low. They already implied that reviews will be declared negative or positive based on the number of stars given, so all you have to do is give three stars to get it pushed through and avoid using coarse/negative language and you can make someone's life very uncomfortable very quickly.

Candie wrote: »

So unless the subject of the review has a profile, they won't publish an negative review? What's the point so?

The app is currently (proposed to be) free, but here's nothing to guarantee it'll stay that way. I imagine the option to remove bad reviews would be the kind feature that would really attract users to a Premium, subscription membership level, if they were to offer one...

Then again, the whole thing is just mad. The part about having 48 hours to "work it out" with someone who's posted a negative review before it goes live... Like I said, the more I read about it, the more I wonder if it's an elaborate hoax.

Candie wrote: »

Who would join at all, if it means opening up the opportunity to be the subject of bad reviews?

The thing is, if it had been an opt-in service with the profile owner having the ability to hide negative reviews, I can see how this would absolutely be useful and desirable.

A site where someone could get an overview of a person's better qualities so they didn't have to sell themselves would be genius. Isn't there a dating app that basically operates around the idea of "date my friend, sure he's great altogether?" (I checked, and there is; it's MySingleFriend.)

Wouldn't a general app or site that did this be great? You could include the link in your CV and your potential boss could see genuine but carefully curated feedback from people who personally knew you. It would be excellent for figuring out if someone had good social or networking skills, and would mean the end of trying to find the balance between showcasing your abilities enough to get the job without showing off to the point where you're overlooked for being arrogant.

In the non-professional world, it would give people the ability to have a virtual wing-man to help them pick up girls or make new friends. I know that sounds shallow or silly, but the truth is, people do seem to be influenced by how many friends a person has on FB/Instagram, and this would be an extension of that.

Hell, even a site to give you straight-up honest feedback wouldn't be a bad thing, so long as was a. opt-in, and that b. visible to the profile owner only so that nobody else could use it to publicly ruin you.

Where the creators went wrong was trying to combine these ideas. Either one would have been fine-- but together, especially without it being something you volunteer to participate in, it's an unmitigated horrorshow.

Candie wrote: »

Who would join at all, if it means opening up the opportunity to be the subject of bad reviews? Surely anyone with any sense would just give the whole idea a wide berth, regardless of the reviews.

Actually, I've just thought of something else. I think a lot of people who would otherwise have ignored the app would be so maddened with curiosity once they got the review notification that they'd have to join to sate it. Just to find out what people were saying about them. It would be a hard lure for a lot of people to resist, I think.

And I also think that's exactly what the developers are banking on.

Is ratemyteacher still a thing? I remember looking up one of my old teachers, one of those rare dead poets society type of teachers who are genuinely gifted and committed, the kind of teacher you never forget, and even he had the odd asshat leaving nasty comments about him.

DivingDuck wrote: »

I was thinking less rating and more feedback, like the blurbs authors get for their books, or like they use on movie posters.

"Candie has super grammar and always replies promptly to her quoted posts."
"DivingDuck always tries to offer assistance wherever possible."

That sort of thing. Granted, it wouldn't be a metric that would be much use alone, but I think you could still tell a lot from what people chose to comment on, and what the profile owner allowed to remain visible.

Like LinkedIn then?

DivingDuck wrote: »

I was thinking less rating and more feedback, like the blurbs authors get for their books, or like they use on movie posters.

"Candie has super grammar and always replies promptly to her quoted posts."
"DivingDuck always tries to offer assistance wherever possible."

That sort of thing. Granted, it wouldn't be a metric that would be much use alone, but I think you could still tell a lot from what people chose to comment on, and what the profile owner allowed to remain visible.

So basically they just get all their mates to write nice things about them and use that to get a job??

Candie wrote: »

See this is where the idea fails.

I'm terrible with apostrophes, use too many commas, and I often miss quoted posts and never reply to them at all.

So your positive impression of me is only your truth and not one by which I can be universally judged.

Most pertinently, I'm a thundering bitch, but you wouldn't be allowed to even say that!

I didn't say it would be accurate. But I can see why it would appeal, not grossly offend, and be to some degree useful.

I agree there's no universal truth, but people will go looking for clues to inform themselves wherever they can find it: picking through people's Facebooks, or their old MySpaces, or whatever.

For that reason, I still think a central location for comments that you could direct people to would be useful, especially if you had the ability to curate it. If you don't think my assessment of you (even the positive parts) is relevant or helpful for those you'd like to know you, you'd be able to omit it.

Candie wrote: »

Oh, I can't agree. But I think public facebook pages are an enormous mistake too, so we probably have fundamentally different opinions on privacy anyway.

We don't. I hate Facebook, and use it as sparsely and privately as possible. I just acknowledge that this is a rare perspective these days, and seemingly becoming increasingly rarer.

I wouldn't object to a page of curated references from friends and colleagues, thhough. I would find it useful, but I believe these things should always, always be opt-in, so if someone felt it wasn't for them, they would 100% have the right to ignore it.

starling wrote: »

I would think twice about hiring someone who had a public Facebook profile.

I see your point, but for some roles, it seems like a very visible social media presence is considered desirable? Depends on the company and job, I suppose.

I signed up to pegged just for the craic, because you can't see anyone's "score" without registering. Here's Kim Jong-Un's pegged profile:

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/GLoeB5H

Edit: looking at some of the "normal" people's profiles, there are an average of two ratings on each profile. Clearly not many people use the site.

I imagine the name could be part of the problem, or do I just have a dirty mind?;)