I can see the point of trying to screen bots with reputation, but is that really reputation? Bots in this sense might fit under the expanded definition of spam.
My sense is you can use community input to delist sites but that is not reputation and its only one component and it would be done by criterion of perceived manipulation. Reputation for individual users is just another attempt to set up hierarchy (always arbitrary in practice) and a misuse of power. Its a distraction. Think of people being graded by MBNA for credit worthiness instead of society grading MBNA and removing it from the markets. Again its power flowing in the wrong direction.
We don’t need to pinch people. Will you allow people to cycle pseudonyms endlessly with reputation tracking of each? With one pseudonym a person behaves as an angel and with the other a psycho path? With the angel there may more vestment in preserving the reputation but that’s not much to go on. When it comes to people its more BS. This is enclosure and a backwards use of information. You can know someone ten years and still find you are not able to trust them. People who are worthy of trust in a deep sense are deeply mature but personal reputation (which is the idiocy of credit systems- its gossip) would only take you so far. Its an invitation to enclosure, its a kind of measurement uninvited of people which is a kind of violence or coercion. It can be set into contexts and manipulated. Lets say with great effort one a group of people are made into Cool-Aid drinkers. If one encounters then and one is a bit more sober one will be down graded. Lets say the tracking were still private but truly invasive like match.com. Would we be willing to marry someone based on the recommendation of this mutual voluntary fully invasive system? No. But its a reputation customized for use with full knowledge of both parties.
When it comes to delisting spam and its influence in conjunction with other elements like intelligent code and conflict sponosor/ad free honest search and trending it makes sense but its also not reputation, its more black and white than that.
This is where in the virtual I think all content and services should be in universal open access so there is no competition. People will hand over the end income that the system gives to end users to developers and service providers that they want to encourage continued effort from. To me this voucher-izes away the obvious points of useless manipulation. It may be only one income flow for providers but let it be big enough to be the deciding one. Reputation is a function of trying to turn end users into products.
The power has to be in the base. Was it Proudhon who characterized communism and ostensibly flat systems like it as the weak ruling over the strong. And Plato who based on his experience with the mob sought to temper its input. But the issue with hierarchy and power concentration is that it guarantees the weak rule over the strong. In capitalism if they weren’t just murderous lottery winners in a generation the or two comparative equivalent will be in power, especially relative to the “strong (really virtuous)” who statistically emanate from the base. Also, those mature enough for to handle crowd control type stuff tend to consider it useless relative to their own development and don’t want to waste time on it. Want their input consistently and reliably? Maximize the base.