Post #94,697
4/6/03 6:08:03 PM
|
Re: Banning? No. Never.
My position on the topic is this: any organization utlimately either does, or does not, have the ability to allow or disallow members. Exercise of this prerogative should be an extereme measure, but it should be allowed. It's expressed in a number of ways. Exile, excommunication, banishment, firing, etc. In an electronic forum, it's roughly the ultimate (and very coarse) filtering technique. I believe that lacking this power is ultimately fatal to any community -- it will either dissolve in chaos or be absorbed into some larger community, likely with quite different core beliefs and goals. \r\n\r\n In an electronic medium there's the added issue that enforcement of such actions is at best problematic. The main problems being that identifying credentials are limited (IP addresses, and a general gist of "style" in posting format being the main ones). Scott takes a largely opposing view to mine, on both technical and ethical grounds. OTOH, Scott has actively banned two users directly (Bryce, for posting a bullet-riddled, blood-dripping image of Scott, and Michel, who simply couldn't participate in a non-inflammetory manner with the group). Spammers and drive-by trolls are also banned from zIWT. \r\n\r\n I've disabled Norm's access to TWikIWeThey after he repeatedly posted essentially junk content, and under multiple identities. Also after he'd been asked and warned repeatedly not to do same. Cleaning up after his repeated tantrums has taken more time than any other activity on the site, including migrating it from the old (naga) server to new (knight) one. This is uncompensated time which is restricted to minutes per day during the week, and possible an hour or so on a weekend, stolen from other activities. I'm very jealous of any wasted time, and take a dim view to those who take it from me. \r\n\r\n Among its other faults, zIWE largely lacks any filtering or ranking mechanisms other than those derived from social and informal methods (eg: "nice post" or "please don't do that"). There's a long-standing issue in electronic (and other public forums) that high-value content is greatly less prevalent than low-value content. There are other issues: people don't agree on what is or isn't high-value, random content can provoke interesting responses, and people react negatively to being censored. However, [link|http://www.inftech.ru/comedy/murphy/mur00637.htm|Kitman's Law] holds, and ultimately leads to flight of clue. Balancing this is difficult. \r\n\r\n I've designed a comment-moderation scheme which works to some extent at [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org/|Kuro5hin], a discussion site. --\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|
Post #94,740
4/6/03 11:13:00 PM
|
Cholmondeley's Annular Grillage Constant
[as ref'd. in The Turbo Encabulator in Industry]
~ not much of the above applies for 'sufficiently small group size'.
But probably ranking / filtering Must occur at larger populations.
This introduces the Group Mind / the impossibility of defining significant / the likelihood of the usual:
A small minority of folks interested in such things as Organizing + Controlling Authority shall begin to invent limits, across many scales. And all for the most Logical of deductions. Not to say reasoning.
Or, since Growth ==> Cancer
If we grow large enough here, we may have to destroy the org and start over ;-)
Ashton
Groucho (and Feynman) got it
|
Post #94,856
4/7/03 5:06:39 PM
|
Re: Banning? No. Never.
I've disabled Norm's access to TWikIWeThey after he repeatedly posted essentially junk content, and under multiple identities. Also after he'd been asked and warned repeatedly not to do same. Cleaning up after his repeated tantrums has taken more time than any other activity on the site, including migrating it from the old (naga) server to new (knight) one. This is uncompensated time which is restricted to minutes per day during the week, and possible an hour or so on a weekend, stolen from other activities. I'm very jealous of any wasted time, and take a dim view to those who take it from me.
Well, I relate to that, although there are many less extreme measures other than banning, as well. When Norman was being strange on my group, for example, I simply blocked his alternate's ability to post and then put his main one on moderate. I never threw him out or banned him. I don't know if those capabilities exist on here or not, but they are sometimes more effective than a simple banning, because you can only ban the one ID and unless you catch the others, what prevents them from rejoining? Anyway, just another option. Among its other faults, zIWE largely lacks any filtering or ranking mechanisms other than those derived from social and informal methods (eg: "nice post" or "please don't do that"). There's a long-standing issue in electronic (and other public forums) that high-value content is greatly less prevalent than low-value content. There are other issues: people don't agree on what is or isn't high-value, random content can provoke interesting responses, and people react negatively to being censored. However, [link|http://www.inftech.ru/comedy/murphy/mur00637.htm|Kitman's Law] holds, and ultimately leads to flight of clue. Balancing this is difficult.
I don't quite get the concept of the long standing issue of high-value content and low value content and it's prevalence... or random content... but maybe I'm just not getting it in the right context? Nightowl >8# "Only dead fish swim with the stream."
Linda Ellerbee
|
Post #94,893
4/7/03 7:00:57 PM
|
...the concept of...high-value content...
It's a topic called "collaborative filtering", try googling that. Good pile of info at UCB I may link back later. \r\n\r\n It's the idea of picking out the gems from the mud by letting multiple people voice their assessment of content. Generally: while no one person can rate everything, and not all people will be in agreement, you can get relatively good results and complete coverage in many cases. \r\n\r\n There are both explicit (rate content) and implicit (impute rating from behavior) models. Systems like Kuro5hin, Slashdot, and IMDB are explicit. Google and Tehoma are implicit. Fascinating subject...for some of us. --\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|
Post #94,897
4/7/03 7:21:48 PM
|
You scare me
-drl
Though my feet aren't on the ground,
I've been standing on the sound
Of some open hearted people, going down.
|
Post #94,903
4/7/03 7:36:50 PM
|
I think he's ahead of the curve.
The curse of the 'Info Revolution' is the growing fading of the signal into the noise. Obv no 'rating' system can match a mind; but I can't see that being an excuse to simply abandon all efforts to try for "some help" - nobody has to accept a given algorithm.
If it's going to be a necessity when all this is 10x of today's volume.. best start early to at least ponder the matter.
Ashton
|
Post #94,906
4/7/03 7:47:43 PM
|
Re: I think he's ahead of the curve.
I always feel like I'm listening to Hal - sorry Karsten - "We are all, by any practical definitions of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
[link|http://koti.mbnet.fi/badbee/wavs/9000.wav|http://koti.mbnet.fi...bee/wavs/9000.wav]
Now the point is - what is the difference between
1) Foolproof
2) Incapable of error
If there is no difference, then Hal is being deliberately redundant - what is this, pride? Or an efficient swap file?
-drl
Though my feet aren't on the ground,
I've been standing on the sound
Of some open hearted people, going down.
|
Post #94,972
4/8/03 1:03:52 AM
|
Re: ...the concept of...high-value content...
Uhhhhh I don't get any of that, sorry, and I have been avoiding "googling or Yahooing" anything I don't have to because searching the internet is one of the FASTEST ways to make Andrei eat all his resources in one or two chomps.
I'll keep it in mind for when I have my new computer, but most of what you said, I couldn't comprehend, sorry.
Nightowl >8#
"Only dead fish swim with the stream."
Linda Ellerbee
|
Post #94,983
4/8/03 7:42:52 AM
|
Moderation 101
Have you ever been to [link|http://slashdot.org?|http://slashdot.org?] Any article may get several hundres replies and replies to replies. And there may be several dozen articles posted per day. Unless you are a speed-reading savant, or a bored high-school/college student, you can't possibly read everything. So how do you narrow it down? Moderation.
Several hundred people every day are assigned "moderation points" and they can rate any given post as particularly worthwhile, or not. Users can then choose to only see highly-ranked posts. By limiting moderation points to frequent visitors, the system attempts to filter out one-hit-wonders who just want to game the system. Of course bored high-school/college students just see that as a challenge ...
It's sort of like finding a movie reviewer you like. You can't see everything, so you find someone whose opinion you trust and go by their recommendations. Except that the sheer volume of new material on the net means the criticism had to be distributed. Figuring out how to distribute the load in a useful way is, to some strange people, fascinating.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #95,051
4/8/03 2:00:19 PM
|
Re: Moderation 101
Have you ever been to [link|http://slashdot.org?|http://slashdot.org?] Any article may get several hundres replies and replies to replies. And there may be several dozen articles posted per day. Unless you are a speed-reading savant, or a bored high-school/college student, you can't possibly read everything. So how do you narrow it down? Moderation. I've never been there or anything like it, sorry. This is one of the biggest places I've ever been, along with Lighthouse BBS which was overwhelming all around. Thanks for explaining it, though. Nightowl >8# "Only dead fish swim with the stream."
Linda Ellerbee
|
Post #94,985
4/8/03 8:01:59 AM
|
Translation into English...
Lots of people out there write lots of stuff. Some of it is good. Some of it isn't. We generally like finding good stuff, and would prefer to ignore the crap. Of course there is too much crap for any human to wade through to find even a small fraction of the good stuff.
Can we get computers help? The problem is that computers can't tell what is good. However computers can look at lots of easy choices that people make, and guess what lots of people think about it. Odds are good that you will agree with other people.
For instance [link|http://www.google.com/|http://www.google.com/] ranks pages based on others linking to it - the theory being that I am going to post a link to something because I like it, and if I like it then it is probably good. And people like good stuff. [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org/|http://www.kuro5hin.org/] is a discussion forum that lets passing people easily pass judgements. The aggregate judgement becomes a rating system - highly rated stuff probably is good.
For most people this is a great thing for someone else to have thought about. All that they need to know is that they type their search into Google and get back quality results on virtually anything. They no more care how it works than they care what holds airplanes up - it is enough that it does. But Karsten is fascinated by how to get computers to do this, and what those algorithms mean for community dynamics. (Also what it means for Karsten's ability to find good stuff.)
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #95,008
4/8/03 10:18:36 AM
|
a good example of that is snmp
I was working on a project a few years ago that involved the snmp networking protocol that uses a Managed Information Base or MIB for short. It was easy to search for those terms until a Movie came out called Men In Black after that snmp MIB was very hard to find without wading thru movie stuff.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
Since corporations are the equivelent of human but they have no "concience" they are by definition sociopaths
|
