And ranking can indeed change the behavior of members of social systems

[sumaiyakhatun26]

For example, experimental studies of cultural markets have shown that if their participants know about the ratings of a particular product, then the popularity of the products is distributed unevenly. Roughly speaking, what has received a good rating gains even more popularity. It is worth removing the ratings, and popularity (that same “social capital” – remember?) begins to be distributed among market participants more smoothly.


Experiments have revealed some surprising (or unsurprising but sad) list of cyprus whatsapp phone numbers things. For example, agents of social systems tend to create connections with those who have a high rank in them, and break connections with agents of low rank. To put it simply, everyone subscribes to Buzova, but unsubscribes from the Moscow Conservatory. Research shows that the online popularity of products (content) or their authors and the quality of the products, as well as the degree of talent of the authors, are weakly correlated with each other.


Moreover, the more sensitive the public is to ranking, the worse the relationship between popularity and quality. In other words, algorithms are capable of bringing any trash "to the top". Quote: "...in a growing network, if new nodes choose their connections based on a ranking metric that is biased by the age of the nodes ( the first ones are "better", author's note ), the resulting system will exhibit an uneven distribution of popularity, and the overall correlation between talent and success will be low .