One could look if it made any difference, but the reason for what they see might not be obvious to understand. The obvious expected change would be an increase of the quality metrics and a decrease of the (previous) prestige metrics in correlation of which service customers buy. (In principle, this is calculable.)
In practice, I’d expect the effects would be lower than “rational”, at least at first. Such a precise quality metric is likely to be complicated to obtain (since we don’t have one yet). People would naturally be mistrustful of it; in effect, unless one can do the entire analysis again and re-derive the new metric themselves, one must balance the previous prestige measure with the prestige of the researcher(s) that introduced the new metric. (In fact, even if I could re-derive the metric myself, I wouldn’t apply 100% confidence to my calculations. In all psychological studies thatIread researchers seemed to assume that the rational action would be to apply 100% confidence to new information, with the exception of studies about confidence...)
The effect might be even reversed, in the case of more-or-less paranoid customers suspecting a conspiracy.
Assuming it wasn’t incorporated in the prestige metrics already or too insignificant to bothered with, yes. Prediction is that new customers would change their behaviour in this direction.
Well by your standards once one had collected such data one could see if it made any difference to new customers, when they were informed of it.
One could look if it made any difference, but the reason for what they see might not be obvious to understand. The obvious expected change would be an increase of the quality metrics and a decrease of the (previous) prestige metrics in correlation of which service customers buy. (In principle, this is calculable.)
In practice, I’d expect the effects would be lower than “rational”, at least at first. Such a precise quality metric is likely to be complicated to obtain (since we don’t have one yet). People would naturally be mistrustful of it; in effect, unless one can do the entire analysis again and re-derive the new metric themselves, one must balance the previous prestige measure with the prestige of the researcher(s) that introduced the new metric. (In fact, even if I could re-derive the metric myself, I wouldn’t apply 100% confidence to my calculations. In all psychological studies that I read researchers seemed to assume that the rational action would be to apply 100% confidence to new information, with the exception of studies about confidence...)
The effect might be even reversed, in the case of more-or-less paranoid customers suspecting a conspiracy.
Assuming it wasn’t incorporated in the prestige metrics already or too insignificant to bothered with, yes. Prediction is that new customers would change their behaviour in this direction.