> Example of layer: coding skill. I assign weights to friends I know. Now if I want to know if X is a good coder I check what friends of my friends think about it and multiply it by weights I have assigned to those friends (recursive). But it's much more than just having reasonable opinion about coding skill of somebody who you want to hire or cooperate with.
So, basically, your multilayered web of trust is just a popularity contest. Sorry, but I do not think this is a good idea.
I think this is one of these "doesn't work" that come to analytical mind when presented in a short form and the reason this idea is not more popular.
It would be, if the ranking would be global and not through the lens of your network.
You can have the most popular coder A, he does lot's of video tutorials and blogs. But you have your finely cured network regarding this technology because you are pro yourself. You know that according to people you trust, A is just good. B on the other hand, who never worked for his popularity and whose skills are only known to few other pros who worked with him, is excellent.
That is what you need web of trust for. That's what you likely use today. It's just without strictly specified protocol, using your brain as a storage and meetings with your friends or conferences as a communication channel. It can be improved and made more efficient.
That still doesn't get rid of the popularity contest aspect. You are making an assumption that humans can make perfectly rational decisions most of the time, much less all of the time. The unfortunate reality is that we all influenced by non rational factors as a result of how our brains evolved
Yes, you can't escape that unless you use some AI agent. I don't say I have solution for that.
Once again, using it to "rate coders" is just one of use cases, but I'll stick to it for the sake of this argument.
So you need a DBA. There's one here that could work for you. You can check data online about him, but you don't know who wrote it. You ask your friends around. Some guy you barely knows says he's a fraud. One of your friends says he worked with him and he's good. You're best friend doesn't know him, but his friend, who he trusts, says he's great.
This is how you build your opinion about people (I'm aware it's a simplification but it's not relevant here). The mechanics doesn't change. Just the technology. But it's a leap as big as switching from snail mail to e-mail.
How much you trust some information depends on where it comes from. But it doesn't always come directly from the trusted source. So you use your trusted sources to learn about this information source.
You also learn to lessen your trust in sources that turned out to lead you to some bad information. It's not always easy to keep it all in your head. Business people learn to master that skill because that's the algorithm that works for acquiring trustworthy information and information is money. However not everybody's live revolves about building network of great contacts and staying in touch with them polling for some useful data.
So, basically, your multilayered web of trust is just a popularity contest. Sorry, but I do not think this is a good idea.