> To provide measurable data is one thing, to derive from that data
> qualitative statements is problematic.
> As example see the bitcointalk "reputation" categories like "Hero Member",
> etc…
> It does not mean really much that one is categorized as "Hero Membe". It
> only means he has posted a lot. So better to display only that naked data
> and not derive any unprovable statements.

Even though there is a history of "hero members" that were scammers, being
a hero member provides some kind of "proof of work". As the posts are
public, it is possible to evaluate the quality of such posts. A member
that has posted a large number of high quality posts over the years
deserves some "reputation" as it has contributed to the community. As this
reputation has a "value", the user has some incentive to preserve that
reputation by being legit. I have the feeling that the number of scammers
is higher in the ranks of "junior members" than it is in the ranks of
"hero members".

My belief is that we are moving towards a "reputation economy" in which
what is important is what we contribute to the community and not what we
have.

Peace :)
Jaum