Wouldn't it be super weird for the leading experts in <professional field> to start formally rating their competitors, i.e. other more-junior professionals in that field?
Y'know, the way it's done by all professions worthy of the name?
No, it would not be weird at all, and more importantly, it'd be good for consumers of that industry.
I cannot think of an example exactly like that. But in many professions, senior members are the ones who certify junior members. Law, medicine, all the reputable parts of finance.
I mean, to make my actual argument, instead of just alluding to it, it seems to me that:
1) it's good for consumers of an industry to have ratings of the providers in that industry
2) I can think of three sources for such ratings: crowd-sourced ex-customer ratings, ratings by a purported expert-at-rating, ratings by peers. I think these each have their merits.
3) If ratings-by-peers is indeed useful, then in a given industry, it has to start somewhere.
Y'know, the way it's done by all professions worthy of the name?
No, it would not be weird at all, and more importantly, it'd be good for consumers of that industry.