Organizing Controversial Authors. *LINK*

Hi everyone,

Who is the most authoritative, Osman, Pope, Ellis, or Rohl?
How about other researchers like Bouval and Hancock?

Imagine if they, and writers here, could be numericly ranked in order of overall peer-endorsement.

Here is how it would work:

1. A questionnaire would be given to all participants asking:
"Who are your most favorite/authoritative authors in your main field of interest, and/or who are the most underrated authors in your main field of interest?(Please list two or more authors.)"

2. A second questionnaire would be sent to the non-responding authors(if any) that were selected from the first questionnaire.

3. This poll data would be processed with Social Network Analysis algorithms, one of which is called 'in-prestige'*

4. In-prestige rank would be posted to interested persons:
"That highly ranked author I have never read before."
"Oh, this author is higher ranked than that author, I wonder why."
"Oh, that author is higher ranked than they should be, I'll endorse his top competitor instead."

5. Participants could be continually repolled, and/or could have accounts where they could change their endorsements at any time.

As you can see, this would create a highly competitive environment, where authors ranks would be in continous flux.

*In-prestige is realted to the "prestige" algorithm used since the 1950's to rank medical doctors in their sub-fields. "In-prestige" is better known as PageRank, and has been used to rank webpages, and has been recently used by sociometricians.

In-prestige is a "recursive algorithm", a mathematical process, which allows higher-ranked participants to have more voting power without first knowing who is higher-ranked - someone with twice the rank has twice the voting power. And someone's rank is a total of all of the 'strengths' of their votes. Also, if someone votes for four people, each individual vote has half the *strength*.

If Steve gives a vote with a strength of 2,
and Tina gives a vote with a strength of 3,
and Joe gives a vote with a strength of 3, all to Tom,

Then Tom has a rank of 2+3+3= 8

And if Tom votes for only two people, then 8/2=4, each of his votes has a strength of *4*.

And if Tom votes for four people, then 8/4=2, each of his votes has a strength of *2*. This way his total voting power remains the same as his rank, which is *8*.

This system creates a ranked hierarchy where a person needs only ONE VOTE from someone else to be *IN*. I have already organized a youth-group using this ranking system, and I am looking for more participants to experiment with my method.

Those who are interested can post questions and comments at this site, and/or post at my site:

Mark, Seattle