RATINGS: Subject tags
One issue is the purpose of the ratings system. I don't think it will help to solve the problem of intentional disruption. If the disrupter is really motivated, he could have multiple identities and give positive ratings to his messages, so they would get through. I think a good purpose would be filtering out uninteresting or lower-quality messages. Unless someone else vouches for a message, it would not appear for a subscriber to the filtered list. Eric asked that discussions on this topic use the "subject tag" concept, putting "RATINGS:" in the subject line. Subject tags are a good idea but are not widely used. If more people would use them it would help people to read those messages that interest them. My suggestion is that the ratings be based on subject tags. A rater reads a message, and if he endorses it as being worth reading he sends in one or more subject tags (keywords) which apply. Then someone on the filtered list could subscribe based on particular tags that interest them. The advantage is that this way even newcomers' messages are tagged with useful keywords, tags provided by old-timers on the list when they approve the messages. This also provides for the multi-dimensional aspect of approval, more useful than a simple "thumbs up". I won't try to suggest a syntax, but under this proposal a rating message would include some message identifier (perhaps the list should produce messages with an incrementing message number), along with a list of applicable subject tags. Hal
Sorry for being stupid, but what exactly are these rating things supposed to accomplish? I obviously missed something. ____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu \ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=- \/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> In the United States, they \/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> first came for us in Colorado... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- (GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++ n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Sorry for being stupid, but what exactly are these rating things supposed to accomplish? I obviously missed something.
If you read the whole list, nothing. If you don't want to read the whole list, then the ratings are supposed to help you decide what you want to read. If you don't read something, you have to rely on the opinion of someone who did read it. The ratings list is a formal way of communicating these opinions. Eric
If the disrupter is really motivated, he could have multiple identities and give positive ratings to his messages, so they would get through.
No one says you have to believe a particular rating.
Unless someone else vouches for a message, it would not appear for a subscriber to the filtered list.
The system I want to experiment with for cypherpunks is not filtration at the mailing list server but rather filtration at the user's end. The "filtered list" is whatever passes through one's own filter. I am not talking about making toad into an extropians-style list with lots of server operations.
My suggestion is that the ratings be based on subject tags.
I suggest that one kind of rating be based on subject tags, or primary topic, or keywords, or something similar. I also suggest that other kinds of ratings exist. Hal's suggestion is to make a rating based on salience to topic. This is fine, it allows a sheaf of related topics and concerns to be unbundled according to a particular reader's viewpoint.
a rating message would include some message identifier
There is already the right message identifier. It appears in each piece of mail in the header field Message-Id. Eric
participants (3)
-
Hal -
hughes＠ah.com -
Robert A. Hayden