People ratings: a new hero of the future era
! The current state of the topic is now supported in this Google document .
People rating services are able to become a controlling link in a bundle of brands - user sites, change the balance of power in the existing ecosystem of various sites, and also bring new opportunities for network social interactions. Moreover, they are able to extend their influence on offline, on the relationship of businesses and customers or clients with customers. Under the cut a lot of letters in support of these theses and other related topics.
Positioning
We note, for a start, the importance of accurately determining what is being measured, what is a higher / lower criterion for a person’s position in the rating. For the task in such a general form, as set out above, we probably should talk about the level of authority and influence in society. I prefer to use the term "social weight". Of course, this is a difficult question - influence can give a position, influence can give money. But by holding a position and having money, you can be a completely worthless, non-authoritative person. Or by cheap pop, you can influence the army of fans. I’ll omit these problems now, because I think for most people this is not so relevant. We will dig too deep and leave the stated goal if we start now to sort it all out. I think the term “social weight” is quite intuitively understandable and adequately describes what is needed.
The existing and already pretty popular project Klout also measures influence, but not in society in general, but in some of the most popular social networks. For example, a certain correlation between offline and Internet influence exists - people with high Klout-rating are often (although not always) quite successful offline. The problem is that the opposite is wrong - reputable offline people do not always have a high Klout-rating. It is clear that the easiest way to read information from several large social networks, but in this way the problem in the complex can not be solved. Or solve only part of the problems, which is also not bad.
')
The second important point related to positioning. For most people, the main channel through which their social self-realization, the acquisition of authority, influence and weight - is a professional activity. The question “who is this person?” Is usually called a profession. Therefore, there is a temptation to partly equate the social weight and value of a person as an expert in a certain field. Naturally, these are related things, but they cannot be mixed in one rating service. Rating in the professional sphere has its own specifics, other algorithms, such a service has a different target audience and may have a different monetization, as will be shown below. By claiming that a Klout rating can affect your career, Klout is trying to mix these things. Such a policy (albeit an unobtrusive one) harms Klout, because, without being sharpened by this task, it can deceive expectations and form negative experiences.
Rating - Brands - Sites - Users
We consider now the rating by social weight, not by profession. Linking rankings with brands is probably a find of Klout and its great merit. Like Groupon, he formed a new discount model: the higher the user rating, the more he receives bonuses and benefits (perks) from brands, businesses offline and on the Internet. Especially if the user has some thematic specialization. The logic is - an influential user who has received a discount from the brand becomes loyal to the brand and even perhaps a little bit of his evangelist. At least he will surely write in his blog that he bought an iPhone for a third of the price (or he received it for nothing) and all his five thousand loyal readers, for whom he has credibility, will thereby receive his share of free Apple ads. There were examples showing that such a strategy can be many times more efficient than traditional advertising. There is also a game of elitism - after all, not everyone can get a discount. Moreover, according to the principle “they don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” the recipient of the discount has less psychological incentives to criticize the product.
Klout is now actively kneading this market, conveying these ideas to brands and users. And it seems more to the brands, because for users on the Klout website, the Perks section is not obvious, some do not even suspect the possibility of converting their rating into real benefits. Here, the story is somewhat similar to Groupon - discounts and bonuses are often regionally attached, for example, now Klout-perks operate mainly in the United States. What is surprising to me is that Groupon spawned a whole explosion of clones around the world, which apparently caused him to spend large amounts of investment received on a quick buying up of regional clones. And in the case of Klout nothing is observed. This service not only does not work with Russian brands, but does not process data from popular Russian social networks, but I have not seen any noticeable clones in Russia. Apparently, this topic is specific for comprehension by both startups and investors; I hope this text will serve to attract attention and reflection.
In this way,
1. users are interested in rating service to raise their rating for the sake of getting benefits from brands.
2. Brands are interested in rating services for the sake of effective promotion.
3. Since various sites are the main place where users can increase their ranking, connecting sites to the rating system stimulates user activity on them. Therefore, sites are also interested in rating service.
None of the links in this chain can normally interact with others directly, it can only through an intermediary - a rating service. Therefore, the more popular the rating, the more powerful it is, it begins to dictate terms. Note also that the rating services can not be much by their very nature. They reduce a huge variety of data to one number; as my friend says, simplify the task to cowards. A large number of rating services would reduce this advantage to no. Exactly for the same reason, there are not many search services in the world - after all, these are the same ranked lists, only for sites. By this analogy, we can predict the future - most likely one person will completely dominate the whole world, as in the current situation with Google and the rest. Now those regional and national players who skip the chip have a chance to seize the local market and continue to resist the global monopoly for a long time and successfully, as Yandex in Russia and Seznam in the Czech Republic managed to do. Or become global monopolists themselves. We can also look at the experience of rivalry between former search favorite Yahu and then newcomer Google - not the fact that today's favorite Klout will become a monopolist in the future. As I showed above and I will show it below, Klout is not all perfect and can be bypassed if you play sensibly on its shortcomings.
I’ll add a little more to point 3, because brand bonuses are not the only incentive for users. Even in general, without any bonuses, the incentive is all the same: the user does not need to earn a reputation from scratch on every new site . The rating becomes “transportable”, for example, an IT professional with a high rating will no longer have to go through the Habr sandbox. Reputation is something that is earned gradually, including achievements in offline, as it is in real life, and does not change quickly and much depending on successfully shared or hidden posts, as has been the case in Klout (well, or recently, for they regularly change something in the algorithm). However, such rapid change in one case turned out to be useful, it turned out as if an experiment confirming my initial idea that a site not connected to the rating would lose its users and lose to competitors. When Google+ appeared and did not handle Klout, for a month of activity in GooglePlus users noticeably lost in terms of their Klout-rating, which prompted them to return to Facebook. I do not claim that this is the main reason for the outflow from GooglePlus, just such a phenomenon was observed. What is also remotely similar, as if some site is not indexed by search engines.
Well, let's not forget one more thing - although the rating according to the criterion of professionalism should be considered as a separate one, it is not completely independent, there probably should be a component of social weight. How naturally the opposite is true - when calculating social weight, professional achievements should be taken into account. Here, in connection with the professional rating, there is still a whole set of all kinds of stimulants, as discussed below.
Rating as a B2B service
The controlling position of the ranking in the chain of brands - sites - users is of course the most attractive aspect in the strategic plan. But the social weight rating can have “normal” applications:
1. When different kinds of interactions of strangers rating help to make a choice in a variety of situations of choice. For example, on sites like Airbnb, when you rent an apartment from strangers or rent to strangers, the rating will help determine, especially in cases when you hesitate with a choice. The same (even more urgently) in the services of automotive companions. Also collective loans to each other, auctions, etc.
2. The quality of the content produced by a person correlates with the “quality” of a person. This idea, in its own version, is promoted by Witology and a whole set of applications is based on it:
- dropouts of bots and trolls in the comments on various media resources, social networks, blogs. Just turn on the filter by rating level, bots and trolls are required to have a low rating (by the way, this is one of the tests for rating quality). This idea was expressed by Ivan Begtin in 2008.
- elimination of spam in mail services. Something like this, although not quite similar, is already trying to be implemented .
- the opposite option - collecting content "cream" from high-ranking users on different resources, on different topics. In other words, automatic aggregation of quality content from the network.
- You can also think of a new approach to creating elite communities in terms of rating level. Now we have practically only two options - according to recommendations or a “money filter”, as in Snob.
- use of rankings in crowdsourcing projects to identify and involve potentially the best participants. This is one of the important areas, because Crowdsourcing itself is a global trend.
- You can think of different services that are either there, but imperfect, or they are not, but with the advent of the rating may appear. For example, improved recommendations for friends . Or in the geo-services search in the near vicinity of high-ranking people from the user's area of ​​interest.
Calculation algorithm
It would seem that the thing in this text is secondary and optional. But there are some nuances. It is clear that over time, any algorithm will begin to become more complex, include new factors, and as the number of users grows, the amount of information processed will dramatically increase. If you initially do not choose a competent approach, you will have to redo it in the process, which for users is fraught with jumps in the rating then plus or minus, and these jumps will in no way be connected with the behavior of users and the actual change in their reputation. This phenomenon is completely undesirable, because demoralizes users. As far as I can draw conclusions from the observations of Klout, he has this problem and has not decided. Moreover, the matter is not only technical difficulties, a more serious problem lies in the vagueness of Klout positioning - it seems to be trying itself in different ways, and probably changes the algorithm accordingly. But it is very difficult to improve something, if you do not clearly understand what exactly you are improving, where you need to go, what are the criteria better / worse. This problem can escalate with the increasing popularity of Klout.
My proposal in this regard is to summarize the already known well-known algorithm PageRank, which allows to take into account both quantitative and qualitative indicators and is computationally optimized for large amounts of data. I propose to summarize the concept of a link in the PageRank method: any portion of attention given to someone by someone is a “voting link”. At the same time, the forms of manifestation of attention can be different - comments, likes, rassharivaniya, links, quotes, adding to favorites, just reading, fusing, etc. This generalization must be done carefully from the point of view of mathematics, but there seems to be no fundamental problems. Moreover, there are considerations that the PageRank method can be good from another, unexpected side - in it the magnitude of the factors affecting the rating does not need to be asked at the eye with “hands”, since these factors themselves are also ranked.
Another important consideration on the topic is that in order to ration a person, you need to ot a lot of different entities associated with it. Apparently, the most influential types of entities are the author's content and organizations in which the specialist worked (or projects in which he participated). This is a natural thing, for example, here on Habré, in the rating of a person, the success of the posts and comments published by him are taken into account. In the proposed generalized method, PageRank is actually not rated by people, but by any objects belonging to a common network, including people. Those. in fact, we simultaneously have for example also a rating of organizations and content. It is clear that this approach has great potential.
Rating of specialists
It seems to me that something very similar to the Google search page - you enter a set of keywords such as city, programmer, language, platform, framework, and you get a ranked list of people matching these criteria.
Who needs it:
1a Direct employers to find the best professionals. It is clear that this is more about rough preselection, but it also saves a lot of time and effort on the search.
1b. Recruitment agencies for the same purposes. Monetization: payment for advanced information on candidates. After all, the rating is based on processing at least the same in questionnaires on resources such as HeadHunter.ru Ideally, there should be more information, of course. In particular, the information that was used in the calculation of the rating by social weight.
2. Salaried professionals need a high rating as an argument for salary and career growth. Well, a low rating of employees is useful to employers as an argument not to raise wages :)
3. Professionals who provide any paid services. Tutors, lawyers, psychologists, realtors, car mechanics, etc., etc. Freelancers, of course, too. This is a separate song. Monetization: providing a specialist personal account on the site and charging proportional attendance of this account. The logic here is simple: the flow of the specialist who views the page is converted into his clients. The minimum functionality of the cabinet is a regular profile, just to establish contact between the client and the specialist.
4. Of course, consumers need the services of a specialist rating too. If the doctor works in a hospital, you can choose the best doctor. Monetization for them can be advertising.
5. In terms of B2B, a rating service can provide a rating service for specialists for third-party sites. For example, sites of tutors, where there are either no ratings at all, or they are primitive and vulnerable to cheating.
In terms of monetization, let us add, by analogy with search services, a couple of non-rating paid places in the top of the issue, as well as, by analogy with freelance sites, a secure transaction service.
Calculation algorithm
Information for the social weight rating is not collected in one place of the network and, all the more, it is not systematized. Information on specialists is usually collected and systematized in the form of questionnaires on sites like HeadHunter. And it contains exactly what employers are most interested in. It would be strange not to take into account these differences in the rating calculation algorithm. I think instead of PageRank, another method is more suitable here. In a primitive version, it looks like this: if you have several parameters from the questionnaire, such as age and work experience, you rank the questionnaires according to the criterion so that the sum of these parameters is minimal. (More precisely, the experience just the more the better, but for such cases we can minimize the allowable return value). Further, the model can be complicated, introduce significance coefficients for different factors and add the factors themselves. And in the final ranking take into account also the rating by social weight.
Competitors
For the social weight rating, I do not even see competitors in Russia. In the world of obvious competitor Klout. But he is not in all respects a competitor, because measuring social weight and measuring influence in social networks is not the same thing. Usually, even if there are no direct competitors, there are those who lose something. In the case of a rating, it seems to me that everyone only wins - after all, the rating service does not generate its own content, it doesn’t pull someone’s users to it. Except perhaps for advertising budgets from brands, that’s yes. And someone loses control: Facebook may think that it controls the social Internet, but it hardly assumes that Facebook itself can be implicitly controlled by third-party services. Only another rating service can be a full-fledged competitor of a rating service.
However, this does not apply to the rating of specialists. — HeadHunter . — -. . - . — . — () . , . , . Free-lance.ru , - - . , — , Free-lance.ru , .
-, , , .
. , — — — «» . , . , , . , , , . : .
. , , , . , , . : .
PS ; - , , ? , - . - , , . - , — . , , , , , , -… , :)
People rating services are able to become a controlling link in a bundle of brands - user sites, change the balance of power in the existing ecosystem of various sites, and also bring new opportunities for network social interactions. Moreover, they are able to extend their influence on offline, on the relationship of businesses and customers or clients with customers. Under the cut a lot of letters in support of these theses and other related topics.
Positioning
We note, for a start, the importance of accurately determining what is being measured, what is a higher / lower criterion for a person’s position in the rating. For the task in such a general form, as set out above, we probably should talk about the level of authority and influence in society. I prefer to use the term "social weight". Of course, this is a difficult question - influence can give a position, influence can give money. But by holding a position and having money, you can be a completely worthless, non-authoritative person. Or by cheap pop, you can influence the army of fans. I’ll omit these problems now, because I think for most people this is not so relevant. We will dig too deep and leave the stated goal if we start now to sort it all out. I think the term “social weight” is quite intuitively understandable and adequately describes what is needed.
The existing and already pretty popular project Klout also measures influence, but not in society in general, but in some of the most popular social networks. For example, a certain correlation between offline and Internet influence exists - people with high Klout-rating are often (although not always) quite successful offline. The problem is that the opposite is wrong - reputable offline people do not always have a high Klout-rating. It is clear that the easiest way to read information from several large social networks, but in this way the problem in the complex can not be solved. Or solve only part of the problems, which is also not bad.
')
The second important point related to positioning. For most people, the main channel through which their social self-realization, the acquisition of authority, influence and weight - is a professional activity. The question “who is this person?” Is usually called a profession. Therefore, there is a temptation to partly equate the social weight and value of a person as an expert in a certain field. Naturally, these are related things, but they cannot be mixed in one rating service. Rating in the professional sphere has its own specifics, other algorithms, such a service has a different target audience and may have a different monetization, as will be shown below. By claiming that a Klout rating can affect your career, Klout is trying to mix these things. Such a policy (albeit an unobtrusive one) harms Klout, because, without being sharpened by this task, it can deceive expectations and form negative experiences.
Rating - Brands - Sites - Users
We consider now the rating by social weight, not by profession. Linking rankings with brands is probably a find of Klout and its great merit. Like Groupon, he formed a new discount model: the higher the user rating, the more he receives bonuses and benefits (perks) from brands, businesses offline and on the Internet. Especially if the user has some thematic specialization. The logic is - an influential user who has received a discount from the brand becomes loyal to the brand and even perhaps a little bit of his evangelist. At least he will surely write in his blog that he bought an iPhone for a third of the price (or he received it for nothing) and all his five thousand loyal readers, for whom he has credibility, will thereby receive his share of free Apple ads. There were examples showing that such a strategy can be many times more efficient than traditional advertising. There is also a game of elitism - after all, not everyone can get a discount. Moreover, according to the principle “they don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” the recipient of the discount has less psychological incentives to criticize the product.
Klout is now actively kneading this market, conveying these ideas to brands and users. And it seems more to the brands, because for users on the Klout website, the Perks section is not obvious, some do not even suspect the possibility of converting their rating into real benefits. Here, the story is somewhat similar to Groupon - discounts and bonuses are often regionally attached, for example, now Klout-perks operate mainly in the United States. What is surprising to me is that Groupon spawned a whole explosion of clones around the world, which apparently caused him to spend large amounts of investment received on a quick buying up of regional clones. And in the case of Klout nothing is observed. This service not only does not work with Russian brands, but does not process data from popular Russian social networks, but I have not seen any noticeable clones in Russia. Apparently, this topic is specific for comprehension by both startups and investors; I hope this text will serve to attract attention and reflection.
In this way,
1. users are interested in rating service to raise their rating for the sake of getting benefits from brands.
2. Brands are interested in rating services for the sake of effective promotion.
3. Since various sites are the main place where users can increase their ranking, connecting sites to the rating system stimulates user activity on them. Therefore, sites are also interested in rating service.
None of the links in this chain can normally interact with others directly, it can only through an intermediary - a rating service. Therefore, the more popular the rating, the more powerful it is, it begins to dictate terms. Note also that the rating services can not be much by their very nature. They reduce a huge variety of data to one number; as my friend says, simplify the task to cowards. A large number of rating services would reduce this advantage to no. Exactly for the same reason, there are not many search services in the world - after all, these are the same ranked lists, only for sites. By this analogy, we can predict the future - most likely one person will completely dominate the whole world, as in the current situation with Google and the rest. Now those regional and national players who skip the chip have a chance to seize the local market and continue to resist the global monopoly for a long time and successfully, as Yandex in Russia and Seznam in the Czech Republic managed to do. Or become global monopolists themselves. We can also look at the experience of rivalry between former search favorite Yahu and then newcomer Google - not the fact that today's favorite Klout will become a monopolist in the future. As I showed above and I will show it below, Klout is not all perfect and can be bypassed if you play sensibly on its shortcomings.
I’ll add a little more to point 3, because brand bonuses are not the only incentive for users. Even in general, without any bonuses, the incentive is all the same: the user does not need to earn a reputation from scratch on every new site . The rating becomes “transportable”, for example, an IT professional with a high rating will no longer have to go through the Habr sandbox. Reputation is something that is earned gradually, including achievements in offline, as it is in real life, and does not change quickly and much depending on successfully shared or hidden posts, as has been the case in Klout (well, or recently, for they regularly change something in the algorithm). However, such rapid change in one case turned out to be useful, it turned out as if an experiment confirming my initial idea that a site not connected to the rating would lose its users and lose to competitors. When Google+ appeared and did not handle Klout, for a month of activity in GooglePlus users noticeably lost in terms of their Klout-rating, which prompted them to return to Facebook. I do not claim that this is the main reason for the outflow from GooglePlus, just such a phenomenon was observed. What is also remotely similar, as if some site is not indexed by search engines.
Well, let's not forget one more thing - although the rating according to the criterion of professionalism should be considered as a separate one, it is not completely independent, there probably should be a component of social weight. How naturally the opposite is true - when calculating social weight, professional achievements should be taken into account. Here, in connection with the professional rating, there is still a whole set of all kinds of stimulants, as discussed below.
Rating as a B2B service
The controlling position of the ranking in the chain of brands - sites - users is of course the most attractive aspect in the strategic plan. But the social weight rating can have “normal” applications:
1. When different kinds of interactions of strangers rating help to make a choice in a variety of situations of choice. For example, on sites like Airbnb, when you rent an apartment from strangers or rent to strangers, the rating will help determine, especially in cases when you hesitate with a choice. The same (even more urgently) in the services of automotive companions. Also collective loans to each other, auctions, etc.
2. The quality of the content produced by a person correlates with the “quality” of a person. This idea, in its own version, is promoted by Witology and a whole set of applications is based on it:
- dropouts of bots and trolls in the comments on various media resources, social networks, blogs. Just turn on the filter by rating level, bots and trolls are required to have a low rating (by the way, this is one of the tests for rating quality). This idea was expressed by Ivan Begtin in 2008.
- elimination of spam in mail services. Something like this, although not quite similar, is already trying to be implemented .
- the opposite option - collecting content "cream" from high-ranking users on different resources, on different topics. In other words, automatic aggregation of quality content from the network.
- You can also think of a new approach to creating elite communities in terms of rating level. Now we have practically only two options - according to recommendations or a “money filter”, as in Snob.
- use of rankings in crowdsourcing projects to identify and involve potentially the best participants. This is one of the important areas, because Crowdsourcing itself is a global trend.
- You can think of different services that are either there, but imperfect, or they are not, but with the advent of the rating may appear. For example, improved recommendations for friends . Or in the geo-services search in the near vicinity of high-ranking people from the user's area of ​​interest.
Calculation algorithm
It would seem that the thing in this text is secondary and optional. But there are some nuances. It is clear that over time, any algorithm will begin to become more complex, include new factors, and as the number of users grows, the amount of information processed will dramatically increase. If you initially do not choose a competent approach, you will have to redo it in the process, which for users is fraught with jumps in the rating then plus or minus, and these jumps will in no way be connected with the behavior of users and the actual change in their reputation. This phenomenon is completely undesirable, because demoralizes users. As far as I can draw conclusions from the observations of Klout, he has this problem and has not decided. Moreover, the matter is not only technical difficulties, a more serious problem lies in the vagueness of Klout positioning - it seems to be trying itself in different ways, and probably changes the algorithm accordingly. But it is very difficult to improve something, if you do not clearly understand what exactly you are improving, where you need to go, what are the criteria better / worse. This problem can escalate with the increasing popularity of Klout.
My proposal in this regard is to summarize the already known well-known algorithm PageRank, which allows to take into account both quantitative and qualitative indicators and is computationally optimized for large amounts of data. I propose to summarize the concept of a link in the PageRank method: any portion of attention given to someone by someone is a “voting link”. At the same time, the forms of manifestation of attention can be different - comments, likes, rassharivaniya, links, quotes, adding to favorites, just reading, fusing, etc. This generalization must be done carefully from the point of view of mathematics, but there seems to be no fundamental problems. Moreover, there are considerations that the PageRank method can be good from another, unexpected side - in it the magnitude of the factors affecting the rating does not need to be asked at the eye with “hands”, since these factors themselves are also ranked.
Another important consideration on the topic is that in order to ration a person, you need to ot a lot of different entities associated with it. Apparently, the most influential types of entities are the author's content and organizations in which the specialist worked (or projects in which he participated). This is a natural thing, for example, here on Habré, in the rating of a person, the success of the posts and comments published by him are taken into account. In the proposed generalized method, PageRank is actually not rated by people, but by any objects belonging to a common network, including people. Those. in fact, we simultaneously have for example also a rating of organizations and content. It is clear that this approach has great potential.
Rating of specialists
It seems to me that something very similar to the Google search page - you enter a set of keywords such as city, programmer, language, platform, framework, and you get a ranked list of people matching these criteria.
Who needs it:
1a Direct employers to find the best professionals. It is clear that this is more about rough preselection, but it also saves a lot of time and effort on the search.
1b. Recruitment agencies for the same purposes. Monetization: payment for advanced information on candidates. After all, the rating is based on processing at least the same in questionnaires on resources such as HeadHunter.ru Ideally, there should be more information, of course. In particular, the information that was used in the calculation of the rating by social weight.
2. Salaried professionals need a high rating as an argument for salary and career growth. Well, a low rating of employees is useful to employers as an argument not to raise wages :)
3. Professionals who provide any paid services. Tutors, lawyers, psychologists, realtors, car mechanics, etc., etc. Freelancers, of course, too. This is a separate song. Monetization: providing a specialist personal account on the site and charging proportional attendance of this account. The logic here is simple: the flow of the specialist who views the page is converted into his clients. The minimum functionality of the cabinet is a regular profile, just to establish contact between the client and the specialist.
4. Of course, consumers need the services of a specialist rating too. If the doctor works in a hospital, you can choose the best doctor. Monetization for them can be advertising.
5. In terms of B2B, a rating service can provide a rating service for specialists for third-party sites. For example, sites of tutors, where there are either no ratings at all, or they are primitive and vulnerable to cheating.
In terms of monetization, let us add, by analogy with search services, a couple of non-rating paid places in the top of the issue, as well as, by analogy with freelance sites, a secure transaction service.
Calculation algorithm
Information for the social weight rating is not collected in one place of the network and, all the more, it is not systematized. Information on specialists is usually collected and systematized in the form of questionnaires on sites like HeadHunter. And it contains exactly what employers are most interested in. It would be strange not to take into account these differences in the rating calculation algorithm. I think instead of PageRank, another method is more suitable here. In a primitive version, it looks like this: if you have several parameters from the questionnaire, such as age and work experience, you rank the questionnaires according to the criterion so that the sum of these parameters is minimal. (More precisely, the experience just the more the better, but for such cases we can minimize the allowable return value). Further, the model can be complicated, introduce significance coefficients for different factors and add the factors themselves. And in the final ranking take into account also the rating by social weight.
Competitors
For the social weight rating, I do not even see competitors in Russia. In the world of obvious competitor Klout. But he is not in all respects a competitor, because measuring social weight and measuring influence in social networks is not the same thing. Usually, even if there are no direct competitors, there are those who lose something. In the case of a rating, it seems to me that everyone only wins - after all, the rating service does not generate its own content, it doesn’t pull someone’s users to it. Except perhaps for advertising budgets from brands, that’s yes. And someone loses control: Facebook may think that it controls the social Internet, but it hardly assumes that Facebook itself can be implicitly controlled by third-party services. Only another rating service can be a full-fledged competitor of a rating service.
However, this does not apply to the rating of specialists. — HeadHunter . — -. . - . — . — () . , . , . Free-lance.ru , - - . , — , Free-lance.ru , .
-, , , .
. , — — — «» . , . , , . , , , . : .
. , , , . , , . : .
PS ; - , , ? , - . - , , . - , — . , , , , , , -… , :)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/152231/
All Articles