{"id":43253,"date":"2023-10-20T15:27:14","date_gmt":"2023-10-20T15:27:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/startupsmart.test\/2023\/10\/20\/the-problem-with-rating-people-on-the-new-app-peeple-startupsmart\/"},"modified":"2023-10-20T15:27:14","modified_gmt":"2023-10-20T15:27:14","slug":"the-problem-with-rating-people-on-the-new-app-peeple-startupsmart","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.startupsmart.com.au\/uncategorized\/the-problem-with-rating-people-on-the-new-app-peeple-startupsmart\/","title":{"rendered":"The problem with rating people on the new app Peeple – StartupSmart"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/em><\/span>As I write this, #Peeple is the top trending topic in my Twitter sidebar. The web is bemused and irate about an app that will let people rate other people as if they were baubles purchased on Amazon.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Its cofounders, Nicole McCullough and Julia Cordray, plan to launch the app in November. They trace its origins to a conversation about McCullough\u2019s frustrations with finding a reliable babysitter. Although inspired by a prosaic concern, their intentions are grander. Their motto is \u201ccharacter is destiny,\u201d and, in interviews, Cordray says that she wants \u201ccharacter to be our new form of currency.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n If legitimate, it sounds as if their app is to serve as the digital equivalent of the ancient Fates. Whereas the three Fates controlled destinies by way of the threads of life, Peeple aims to shape destinies by way of professional, personal and romantic ratings. Supposedly, employers and romantic interests will be able to search for people of good \u201ccharacter,\u201d and the company plans to charge for searches beyond a single daily freebie.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This is how bad an idea #Peeple is. Yelp has to do damage control for an app it didn’t even create. https:\/\/t.co\/b1iZtWFDre<\/p>\n \u2014 afertig (@afertig) October 1, 2015<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n Much of the response to the app is negative and ill-informed. The negativity arises because this is a platform through which we might be negatively evaluated (at best) or harassed (at worst) without any say other than to buy into their system. The confusion arises because it\u2019s not yet released and their website was inaccessible much of Wednesday \u2013 an indication of popularity or the consequence of a denial of service attack.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I study online communications, especially commenting and rating platforms. In reading a cached version of their website, press interviews and in watching their 10-episode YouTube mini-series, I\u2019m struck by two things about Peeple.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n First, McCullough and Cordray claim the idea is novel. Peeple\u2019s FAQ (frequently asked questions) section declares that letting people see how they are viewed by others is \u201ca concept that has never been done before in a digital space.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This is not true. In my book Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web, I discuss people\u2019s penchant for rating and ranking everything, including other people. Now-defunct services like PersonRatings, Unvarnished and KarmaFile permitted others to rate coworkers. Apps like Lulu allow women to rate their dates. Services like Klout, Kred, PeerIndex and Radian6 use information already on the web to rate people\u2019s online influence. The apps Stamped, Oink and Jotly could be used to rate anything, be it a coworker, side of bacon or ice cube. Peeple\u2019s permutation of features and policy may be unique, but the idea is not new.<\/p>\n\n
Following in other rating sites’ footsteps<\/h2>\n