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