Having been using the internet for more than a decade, I can’t think of two more broken ratings systems than those used by eBay and Amazon.

eBay’s appears largely based around screwing the other party over. To make things ‘better’, eBay recently removed the ability for sellers to leave feedback. This resulted in buyers realising they could ‘blackmail’ sellers with strong feedback scores, threatening to leave ‘negatives’ unless partial refunds were given.

Amazon’s system is just as bad, but in a very different way. Since the site enables people who’ve not bought an item to leave feedback, the reviews are largely rendered pointless. A stinking stream of “I’ve not bought this, but…” dribbles around the edge of every page, made all the more putrid when the reviewed item isn’t even available for another six months.

With these things in mind, it should come as no surprise that Gordon Brown’s Labour, bastions of IT idiocy, are now suggesting services like GPs and police should be rated in a similar way (source BBC News). The article notes that Brown said it was wrong that consumer websites such as Amazon and eBay had “higher standards of transparency” than those for public services.

Excuse me, but isn’t this the dumbest idea possible in this area? Sure, get official bodies to figure out if services are up to scratch, and run independent inquiries when things go very wrong. But the last thing we need for councils, the police and childcade is a bunch of one-star reviews by crazy people, annoyed that a service they’ve never used doesn’t do something it’s not supposed to do.

Interesting, though, that Brown notes how the government has been “too slow to make use of the enormous democratising power of information,” and yet ignores true democracy by avoiding giving the people referendums on things that actually matter. (Iraq, anyone?)

He also rattles on about ushering in “a new world of accountability in which parents, patients and local communities shape the services they receive, ensuring all our public services respond not simply to the hand of government, but to the voice of local people.” Note, though, that Brown avoids placing the government and himself in this arena.