JR

In fact, 3rd party services may have problems with large and dynamic WEB sites (in which case they just might rate it high, and rate the whole directory.) (I was thinking about this with regards to incorporating rating systems into WEB site managements tools and apps...) If MICS and signatures do become prevalent, an easy way I can defeat ratings I don't like (or to keep from others rating me) is to repeatedly change my content in some simple way, throwing off their MICS.

the idea with the rating system is that the rating signs the signature of the page, which is itself digitally hashed or something. in other words, the rating is on the "state" of a page at some time. the system would at least be able to detect a change in the state of a page, and inform the user that a rating may no longer be valid due to obsolescence. but you are correct that page changes are probably more problematic for market ratings than self-ratings. it is true that BOTH self-ratings and market ratings have major problems associated with them. the question is, which has the fewest for a given situation? if page designers are going to maliciously misuse rating systems, then the market type system is superior. the market system does suffer from the problem that it is less decentralized. however it is possible that some rating services might be able to economically justify entire armies of rating teams. it is clear some key questions about ratings are as follows: 1. what pressure or coercion, if any, will be placed on page designers and by whom for certain self-ratings? 2. will self-ratings be deliberately misused by people protesting the system? will it be a problem? 3. will page revisions make market ratings unviable? all of these will become more apparent as implementatoins proliferate more widely. again, PICS supports both in theory, so I have no objections to PICS and am fact have been supporting it here. I suggest that we let the market decide which works better-- market ratings or self-ratings. I suspect they will both coexist in the future. trying to a priori argue which will be more problematic seems a bit naive to me. market ratings might make more sense on more formal pages, such as reference material that is likely to be steady over time. self-ratings would be a good fallback if no other information is available. as far as page changes, I don't think the web has a good mechanism for handling changes in its contents right now. improved methods of handling this kind of thing in the future may make the rating problem less difficult. for example, if there was a "systemized" way that a web page could point to a new address it has relocated to, so that everyone that runs their "checker" programs and hits the old page would update the link, etc., this could be incorporated into the rating system to handle one common kind of change. another possibility is for people to put in information into their pages about expected "shelf-life"-- this would help ratings agencies avoid rating places that are not stable.