RATINGS: say what?
Ok a few things. To help me, and possibly others, understand this. (Replace the word "YOU", with your name if you think you understand the rating system...) You want two lists: (of sorts) 1. Current list, as is, anything in -> everyone out. 2. Rated List, anything in -> filtering/rating -> out. Now my question is, who's going to spend the time dealing with this. And how are you going to disallow stuffing the ballot, as we all know about spoofing. And who's actually going to spend the time wading through all the Cypherpunk mail, and rating it all? Are you planning on letter the general readers of "list 1" rate articles, and then people who subscribe to "list 2" will get anything that passes a certain "rating level" (or other criteria)? Are we looking for something that you run the articles through, and it will spit out a "reading level" like most PC word-processors. Then you could ask for just the articles that have <15 misspellings, and a reading level above 11th grade... Pardon me if this isn't quite what some people seem to have in mind, but this just looks like electronic version of filling out forms in triplicate. -Matt (panzer@dhp.com) "That which can never be enforced should not be prohibited."
You want two lists: (of sorts) 1. Current list, as is, anything in -> everyone out. 2. Rated List, anything in -> filtering/rating -> out.
No. The cypherpunks-ratings list is would not be transmitting anything but ratings about cypherpunks messages. I've not responded to anything else in the message because it all assumes the incorrect model. Eric
= But *why* ratings? Readers only want to read good stuff; so they will enhance rating capable post perusers, and they will comunicate with that post peruser by rating authors of ratings, and other authors of general posts. Think of it as a really smart killfile, you tell your post reader if you liked, or didn't like an article, and it learns what ratings are important to you. Authors want to be heard, and build up a 'rep' (and digital cash), so they are incentivized to post good stuff, in apropriate places (and when good enough, to sell the stuff). Flamers will still flame, but they will see clearly how many people read, or like their flames. (and good flamers will sell their rants over in alt.flame...) Raters want to build up a 'rep' (and digital cash), so they are incentivized to rate things (and like other authors, when their stuff is good enough, they will sell it). A person will naturaly be author, reader, and rater at various times. = Which rating dimentions should we use? I really like the idea of a ratings system (no suprise). But I sugest a little more anarchistic, spontaneously ordered system. Start with _any_ set of dimentions, and let other people rate the dimentions. Popular dimentions will be rated highly, and unpopular ones lowly. = How should we format the ratings? I really like the format dimention-name.rating-digits with the digits taken to be a value from 0 to 1. But rather than only being able to rate one article in one rating article, how about condensing multiple ratings as shown below? Then each ratings service (or person) could batch things up, and distribute them with less overhead. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ( ; comment begins with a semicolan (POST article-id1 dimention11.rating11 dimention12.rating12 ...) ; or perhaps even more lispy (POST article-id2 (dimention21 rating21) (dimention22 rating22) ...) ; rating of a portion of an article (POST (article-id3 line-beg.char-beg line-end.char-end) dimention31.rating31 dimention32.rating32 ...) ; rating an author (FROM author1 dimentionA1.ratingA1 dimentionA2.ratingA2 ...) ; rating a rating dimention (DIM dimention dimentionD1.ratingD1 dimentionD2.ratingD2 ...) ) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 6Ez3P7vdHa75uiuqzy4mwaUM3ekx8ohTudmXND1OKr3r9j9mjWtZr8TD8Upc7rVy 4NzoFpDTEXWpGcq6fF7jL4OPpRIMH7ljORDrBL19gjqR9w8leoSylFpNRAHVOCTx jOVUdh+45+u1t9hiYS6IeK5A0LoRWpS/iQCVAgUBLWm2Rni7eNFdXppdAQHB1gQA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- j' -- O I am Jay Prime Positive jpp@markv.com 1250 bit fingerprint B06229 = B8 95 E0 AF 9A A2 CD A5 89 C9 F0 FE B4 3A 2C 3F 524 bit fingerprint 2A915D = 8A 7C B9 F2 D5 46 4D ED 66 23 F1 71 DE FF 51 48 Public keys via `finger jpp@markv.com', or via email to pgp-public-keys@io.com Your feedback is welcome directly or via my symbol JPP on hex@sea.east.sun.com Resist the Clipper Chip, write "I oppose Clipper" to Clipper.petition@cpsr.org
participants (3)
-
hughes＠ah.com -
jpp＠markv.com -
Panzer Boy