We all do this rating in real life. Sometimes people talk about their ratings of other people with each other ("yeah, I know john, he's really annoying"). You know which of your friends are good and which are not... Why not make this open knowledge?
Suppose Alice tells me that Bob is flaky and can't be relied on. I need a lot of information in order to be able to evaluate that claim.
* Maybe Alice and Bob were in a relationship a few months ago, and there was a bad breakup. Alice's experience of Bob would probably be different from my experience of Bob.
* Maybe Alice also told me bad things about Carol and Dan, so I think that Alice just has a dim view of people in general, and isn't willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
* Maybe Alice heard everything from Eve, so I need to consider whether I trust Eve.
* Maybe Bob got chosen over Alice for a promotion at work, even though Alice has seniority. So Alice might have an axe to grind.
* Maybe Alice hangs out with Frank and Grace, who bully Bob. So Bob naturally wouldn't want to be friends with people who bully him, even though Alice isn't doing anything wrong.
When I get this information from Alice in person, I can ask questions or just listen to Alice's tone of voice to figure out the kind of things I want to know about Bob. Putting the information in text form in an application makes it much harder to evaluate Alice's claims, because it only make's Alice's opinion open knowledge.
For example, if all the people who leave bad reviews of Bob are all friends with each other, it should count as a single bad review (so as to not double-count the evidence), and if Alice left bad reviews of several of your friends, it should know that you will probably find Alice untrustworthy, because she dislikes the people you like.
Not that we can trust Peeple or any other app to get that right, but it sounds like it should be possible.
When Alice gives a bad review of Bob, I think to myself, "Why is Alice giving a bad review of Bob?" I'm putting myself in Alice's shoes. There is absolutely no hope that a computer program would be sophisticated enough to do that, not yet, not for at least a decade (translation: possibly not in my lifetime).
Computers can't even solve the "simple" problem of matching people in romantic relationships. When we throw computers at the more general problem of human interactions and trust, we should naturally expect them to completely botch it.
Unfortunately, I think you can hit some mines related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore... but who knows? Maybe it won't happen given that you don't want a transitive relation, you want a numeric score for each driver. (Such a score could be used to influence insurance premiums; as an anarchist, I'm generally thinking about solutions for problems like "suppose we don't have patrol cops".)
(1) People ratings are far too subjective to be considered "knowledge". We have none of the context needed to evaluate the validity of these ratings—the kind of thing you can suss out when gossiping in person.
(2) People can and do change, but these ratings would persist. It makes fresh starts and self-improvement that much more difficult.
(3) People can and do forgive, but these ratings would serve as permanent reminders of bad deeds.
(4) What problem do these ratings solve? I see many problems created, but with no real benefit.
Incidentally, you could solve (2) by "dimming" the relevance of a review as time goes on, eventually clearing it altogether. You could also have a "faster dimming speed" for younger people than for older ones, on the grounds that the young are stupid and the old are probably harder to change.
That can't be the case with personal ratings, because there's no public evaluation or context or validation of each rating.
You talk about "dimming" as if it solves a problem, but what overall problem do personal ratings solve, really? "Dimming" is a solution patched on top of a non-problem. I don't get it.
When the experiences are put in print and published, they drudge up the past and make a dynamic thing a static thing. The printed version of a bad experience won't heal and forgive as people do and the rating won't reinvent itself as people do.
Even credit history is not kept for more than seven years if I'm not mistaken. People do change.
To quote John Oliver: "Have you ever been on the Internet?" Because people are vile and and love whitchhuts. They love destroing social reputation and status, witch is you litteraly need to survive.
Also, anonymity means people are less likely to self-censor. So you get more honesty. Sometimes honesty isn't nice. If you want statements that are only ever nice things to say, you'll have to accept that many of them are lies.