X-Message-Number: 27165
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 04:12:53 -0400
From: "Kevin Q. Brown" <>
Subject: ratings, risks, and redemption

In message # 27152 Kennita Watson expressed concern that
CryoNet messages accessible via the web, but filtered
from the digests because of low ratings, would not be
seen and rebutted by CryoNet readers.  The archives thus
would not provide sufficient and obvious clues to a
casual web surfer that such messages should be regarded
with suspicion.  Furthermore, if an outrageously bad message
slipped through like this, it could cause Trouble.

That's an interesting point, Kennita, and, now that you've
pointed it out, I cannot claim to be ignorant of the possibility.
Darn.  Now I'll have to do something about it.

First, for messages that CryoNet readers _have_ read and rated,
I just made it easier to see the ratings.  For example, the
bottom of the page for viewing your message # 27152:
   http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=27152
now includes the link:
   Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27152
Clicking on that link will show the current rating for that
message as well as provide an opportunity to add a new rating.

Although the rating system makes it easy to view the ratings for
your message, it does _not_ make it easy for anyone but you to find
the overrall rating for your email address ("").
That is by design.  (See message # 24033.)

For messages that are filtered from digests, due to low reputation,
that may be outrageously bad, yet also unread and thus unrated,
I have not yet decided upon the best action to take.  So far, this
has been a low-probability event, and remaining oblivious to the
hypothetical risk has worked quite well.  But now that I've been warned,
it would be negligent of me not to _do something_ about it. :-(


Charles Platt asked in message # 27153:

   "I wonder if the Cryonet system for barring people whose
   reputation is too low includes any provision for gradual
   reinstatement."

First, I must point out an incorrect assumption in your
question and then I will try to answer the corrected question.

The rating system does not really bar people from CryoNet;
it just filters messages from the daily digests that are
from email addresses with low reputations.  That is an
important distinction, not just a semantic quibble,
since a person is not an email address.  In fact, a person
can have _many_ email addresses.  Furthermore, as I have
pointed out before, only the daily digests are filtered,
not the various other means for accessing CryoNet, and even
the digests tell explicitly how to retrieve the contents
of the filtered messages.

Now, to answer your question, my original plan for the rating
system included a time-based discounting scheme that would
weight the ratings of old messages less than the ratings of
recent messages.  That would convert a low rating into a
temporary "penalty box" for bad behavior, accomplishing
essentially what you are suggesting.

That aspect of the rating system never got developed, though,
and now I doubt that it would prove useful.  While a low rating
can be improved by posting high-quality messages, that is much
more difficult to do (especially when most people never read
those messages) than to get a new email address and immediately
start over.  We saw that happen recently with Despres.  No waiting
for eventual redemption or hard work writing well-considered
messages was required before he could resume posting unfiltered
messages to CryoNet digests.  Fortunately, enough CryoNet readers
responded unfavorably to those postings that the reputation of his
second email address dropped quickly.

Yes, there are ways to hack the rating system.  Kennita Watson
has pointed out some weaknesses, too.  But it was not designed
to foil any formidable adversary; it was designed to discourage
disruptors. Getting a "reputation too low" is like a public spanking.
It shows that the CryoNet readers place little value in what one
has to say.  Filtering the postings from the digest is kind of
like shunning.  Usually that is sufficient.  If and when stronger
remedies are needed, then I'll escalate as necessary.

Kevin Q. Brown
 (include "cryonics" or "CryoNet" in the subject line)

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27165