What did they expect - that American lawyers would somehow overlook ratings of their own worth? The woodland habits of bears would be harder to predict...
Avvo, the brand-new lawyer-ranking upstart run by some top US legal professionals and scholars, has only had its shingle hanging for a few days, and already faces a possible lawsuit over its core ranking practices. John Henry Browne, a Seattle-based criminal law attorney, has told Avvo in a letter that he has retained counsel …
James, I agree completely. Its bitterly ironic that attorneys will wail and bemoan a lack of honesty, openness, or some such emotional appeal, to point out anothers shortcoming, but THEY are not to have a magnifying glass put to themselves. Why the impudence of it all...! How dare anyone question ME! The cheek!
"Avvo doesn't publish the details on how it distills the information it gathers into a number on a ten-point scale, arguing that it wants to avoid any gaming of the system."
Clearly they've never heard of a little web page ranking company called Google.
Seriously, the only factor that makes a lawyer ranking system harder to game than a page ranking system is the immense cost of creating data points (lawyers). Other than that, it's the exact same problem. (Many Google tricks depend on creating vast quantities of extra web pages. I would guess that Avvo is probably immune to this type of tactic.) If there are factors in the algorithm which are easily altered by lawyers or clients, then the system is susceptible to gaming. Keeping the algorithm under wraps would only make such gaming harder to detect.
Seems to me that any customer satisfaction rating is acceptable if it is honest, so I fail to see why lawyers would be exempt. The only difference, obviously, is that for anyone else, they have to call a lawyer if they don't agree. Here we have lawyers acting in their own interest.
And we all know how well lawyers defend their own interest, don't we ?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019