Why PICS is the wrong approach

PICS is the wrong approach becuase it oversimplifies the ratings of content, because it places the ratings made by the author in the payload itself, and because third-party ratings systems are cut out of the loop (effectively). One computerish way to think of this is that the "binding" is too early. At the time of distribution, say, I mark my work something with some PICS label, based upon my best understanding of the PICS labels, ratings, agencies, and laws. But once set, the "binding" has been made. Later reviews or reviews by other entities cannot affect the binding, at least not for this distributed instance. And of course it is quite likely that things important to others in their ratings are not as important to me. I might even ignore certain points, not even seeing the need to point out things in the work. This is inevitable, as there is no uniform view of truth, no uniform set of values and priorities, and no hope there ever can be such a monistic view. Consider the recent example of AOL's lists of banned words, even words in "harmless situations" (e.g, the example someone cited of "tits" being banned, despite being the name of a bird...would an animal-lovers Web page or posting with "Tits and Asses!!!" prominently in the title be PICS labelled as obscene? Some would surely think so.). A much better solution is to let the unique ID block of an article--the Usenet article ID, or some hash of the headers, whatever--be a pointer that other ratings servies could then use to provide for their customers or clients as a filtering mechanism. This would allow as many ratings services to exist as clients would be willing to support. Sure, there are _time delays_ in the evaluation process, as, for example, the Catholic Index reviews Web pages and Usenet posts, but all evaluation causes delay. This puts the burden on those proposing to filter content. More importantly, the "payload" does not carry some particular set of fairly-arbitrary PICS evluations. Binding by the censors instead of by the originator, which is as it should be. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Why TCM is wrong about PICS being wrong:
PICS is the wrong approach becuase it oversimplifies the ratings of content, because it places the ratings made by the author in the payload itself, and because third-party ratings systems are cut out of the loop (effectively).
bzzzzzzt. please read about it. there are multiple protocols. some of them allow third-party rating services. some of them support ratings within pages. the standard is neutral.
One computerish way to think of this is that the "binding" is too early. At the time of distribution, say, I mark my work something with some PICS label, based upon my best understanding of the PICS labels, ratings, agencies, and laws. But once set, the "binding" has been made. Later reviews or reviews by other entities cannot affect the binding, at least not for this distributed instance.
you have a good point, but PICS is about letting the net decide. it supports both self-rated and third-party ratings. we will see whether one eclipses the other in the long term. personally I suspect both will coexist.
And of course it is quite likely that things important to others in their ratings are not as important to me. I might even ignore certain points, not even seeing the need to point out things in the work. This is inevitable, as there is no uniform view of truth, no uniform set of values and priorities, and no hope there ever can be such a monistic view.
this is a ridiculous misunderstanding of the rating system concept. the PICS standard expressly supports diversity by letting a thousand rating services bloom, to borrow a phrase from your own book. some rating services may claim to be canonical, but you don't have to believe them. there will be competition of rating services for a long time into the future. this has already happened with all the filtering software out there. also consider the new Firefly system that doesn't actually have fixed ratings on objects, but in which ratings are determined dynamically based on your own personal ratings of pages. Consider
the recent example of AOL's lists of banned words, even words in "harmless situations" (e.g, the example someone cited of "tits" being banned, despite being the name of a bird...would an animal-lovers Web page or posting with "Tits and Asses!!!" prominently in the title be PICS labelled as obscene? Some would surely think so.).
this would be an example of the most rudimentary and simplistic filtering or rating service, which of course the market would generally ignore in favor of more sophisticated alternative schemes.
A much better solution is to let the unique ID block of an article--the Usenet article ID, or some hash of the headers, whatever--be a pointer that other ratings servies could then use to provide for their customers or clients as a filtering mechanism. This would allow as many ratings services to exist as clients would be willing to support.
that's exactly what PICS is about when you read about it more deeply.
More importantly, the "payload" does not carry some particular set of fairly-arbitrary PICS evluations. Binding by the censors instead of by the originator, which is as it should be.
PICS supports both, as it was expressly designed to. what Timmy is repeatedly failing to comprehend despite much evidence staring him in the face is that ratings services are going to be a very significant new information industry, if they haven't already become one. there are now many different filtering packages out there and the market is large for them, as has been proven by *existing* sales. this industry will grow. yahoo and many other indexing services are in fact implicitly rating systems, because they utilize editorial discrimination in deciding who to include and who to exclude. they just don't say, "this is rated yahoo approved" overtly. (timmy is also upset that a massive new industry is growing without his personal approval or anticipation. I will amuse myself by counting the days until he does a flip in position and begins to advocate rating system's efficacy while pretending his position was never otherwise) let a thousand rating systems bloom. PICS is about finding good content as much as rejecting uninteresting content.

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
Why TCM is wrong about PICS being wrong:
PICS is the wrong approach becuase it oversimplifies the ratings of content, because it places the ratings made by the author in the payload itself, and because third-party ratings systems are cut out of the loop (effectively).
bzzzzzzt. please read about it. there are multiple protocols. some of them allow third-party rating services. some of them support ratings within pages. the standard is neutral.
also consider the new Firefly system that doesn't actually have fixed ratings on objects, but in which ratings are determined dynamically based on your own personal ratings of pages.
If Firefly is an example of what PICS is or could become, the hell with PICS. Firefly encourages and rewards group behavior and suppresses individuality. Firefly would reward the discussion of the latest album by a Columbia or Capitol artist, and discourage discussion of material from independent (real independent) labels. I know because I've been there and spent quite a bit of time trying to get a rating. [remainder snipped]

If Firefly is an example of what PICS is or could become, the hell with PICS. Firefly encourages and rewards group behavior and suppresses individuality. Firefly would reward the discussion of the latest album by a Columbia or Capitol artist, and discourage discussion of material from independent (real independent) labels. I know because I've been there and spent quite a bit of time trying to get a rating.
this is absolutely ridiculous. the rating system is designed to be incredibly individualized. it uses sophisticated statistical techniques to find the correlations in your UNIQUE ratings given over a set of items with other people's ratings, and weighs future ratings based on these correlations. it may be even dealing with anti-correlations. in fact what you have, in effect, is a system with *no* hardwired ratings. the ratings space is different for *every*single*person* who uses the service. "you know"? get a clue, please. these systems are not at all like the record rating systems you get in stores. I sympathize with your plight however and agree that the record labeling system is a lame way to go about it. all the more reason to support things like firefly and grouplens (another interesting system that may have inspired firefly, do a yahoo search to find it). superior rating systems will begin to flourish instead of inferior ones...

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
If Firefly is an example of what PICS is or could become, the hell with PICS. Firefly encourages and rewards group behavior and suppresses individuality. Firefly would reward the discussion of the latest album by a Columbia or Capitol artist, and discourage discussion of material from independent (real independent) labels. I know because I've been there and spent quite a bit of time trying to get a rating.
this is absolutely ridiculous. the rating system is designed to be incredibly individualized. it uses sophisticated statistical techniques to find the correlations in your UNIQUE ratings given over a set of items with other people's ratings, and weighs future ratings based on these correlations. it may be even dealing with anti-correlations. in fact what you have, in effect, is a system with *no* hardwired ratings. the ratings space is different for *every*single*person* who uses the service.
As I said, I spent considerable time there, and typed in considerable data. I used the help facilities, and I corresponded with the persons who do support. Firefly was not able to make a single correlation or suggestion for me, which BTW, Alexander Chislenko acknowledged as a weakness of the (current/old) Firefly system. Perhaps you should ask him what the problem is, if you have a curiosity about it. [snip]
participants (3)
-
Dale Thorn
-
Timothy C. May
-
Vladimir Z. Nuri