X-Message-Number: 32486 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:19:46 -0700 From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #32483 Collateral Damage or Misguided Malarkey References: <> --------------070800030508010802010901 I agree with everything David has written in this message - not something that has occurred before here at CryoNet :) There are a few items that I think warrant being added. > Message #32483 > From: David Stodolsky <> > Subject: Re: Collateral Damage or Misguided Malarkey? > Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:18:27 +0100 > References: <> > > On 14 Mar 2010, at 10:00 AM, CryoNet wrote: > > >> The Best Answer To Bad Speech Is More Speech >> >> How to do that? Frankly, I am loath to tinker too deeply >> into the creaky edifice of customized CryoNet code. >> (It's just so 90's and way overdue for a reboot.) But to >> help foster a kinder, gentler CryoNet rating system, >> I just patched in a quick-and-dirty 50% Discount Special. >> The Reputation Calculation Algorithm described at: >> >> http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/reputation.cgi?help=y >> >> now will employ a "spaminess" weight of just half the >> previous amount. "Bad" now will be just "half-bad" and >> "good" will be "great". >> > > This will not work, because it assumes the ratings are honest. A > dishonest rater is free to choose "abuse", the most negative rating. > And as long as most messages are not rated at all, that rating will > dominate. > With anonymity (lack of identity verification) allowed by CryoNet subscribers/posters, subscribers can easily use multiple identities/email addresses and thereby rate posts multiple times. This may already be the case by one or more individuals but none of us would know unless s/he revealed that fact. Also, multiple negative ratings can be - and likely are - used to produce a high "spaminess" reputation for an individual. The rating of "abuse" and "flamebait" are common combinations seen (also both where neither rationally applies) but "poor", "boring", "redundant", "poor_subject_line", "off topic" also contribute to high "spaminess" reputation - and multiple ratings *are* permitted. While relatively few posts have been rated out of the many since this system began (sometime in 2006 as I recall), it is also possible that some could (and maybe actually have) rated posts highly in quality when most others would not have done so. David mentioned this previously and I agree that the motivation to rate a message strongly negative appears to be the case far more often than to rate a message highly positive. However, rating high undeservedly does not result in an *action* as does rating very low, especially with "abuse". (Since Kevin has never published the *exact* algorithm - the description is not sufficient - it is possible that enough people rating a poster's messages as "poor" will build up to a spaminess level that results in that poster's messages being filtered from the digest.) I'm not interested in the ratings at all (I pay attention to evaluations from only a very few special people - my friends) except that they can *cause actions* - the loss of message appearance in the digest and even greater censorship-like degrees of severity. > The current System is vulnerable to strategic manipulation, therefore, > there must be prescreening of raters for honest responding or it will > not work. There is no way to solve this fundamental problem by > changing the weights. > > If Kevin is not going to make the needed changes, then it is time for > some independent and respected group to set up a list that is not > subject to manipulation. It probably isn't necessary that a voting > process is used at all. It is essential, however, that any censorship > can be appealed in some way. Maybe this is a job for the Venturist > organization. The output of this new List could be transmitted to > CryoNet during the changeover. > A forum type arrangement that would allow for inline (interleaved) replies would be far better than one that is more like commenting to a blog entry. Or at least a group (Google and Yahoo provide these free) where messages received by a member and/or viewed can be replied to inline via email or at the site. I and Paul have had a Yahoo group for years (MoreLife) at which we allow anyone to read and to join, but require full identification for all posters. In addition, pair.com which has hosted CryoNet.org since the start (and which Paul selected as his website host 13 years ago on Kevin's recommendation) has free mail list available to all accounts. It is called Pairlist and is based on the open source Mailman, used by many places, which is well proven to work well providing the basic services that now come with CryoNet. This could also be hosted at CryoNet.org with Kevin turning over the job of administering it to someone else, particularly since he seems to want little to do with that these days. This approach would provide some continuity with the current CryoNet and all its archives and other capabilities could remain as is for all messages prior to the switchover. > A message can now be marked down for a poor subject line, but the > digest format makes generating a good subject line extra work that > many don't do. In an age of social sites and instant messaging, this > digest-only format is an embarrassment to the whole Movement. It is > also a lost revenue opportunity. To the degree that primarily cryonics > discussion is posted to other lists or sites, the Movement looses the > opportunity for any income that might be generated from the > accumulating content. At the moment, there are at least three general > lists for cryonics discussion and now we see an "anti-cult" site > benefiting from inputs of cryonics messages. And this last site is anything but neutral on the subject of cryonics - comments that I read interspersing messages (supposedly) posted by members were snide and downright attempts to insult anyone who would think seriously of cryonics, let alone actually have a cryonics contract. > From a marketing > standpoint, it is hard to imagine a worst situation for Movement > communications. We need a list/site that attracts posts from all > cryonicists and even from those critical of cryonics. > > Communication within the Movement is breaking down, because of the > multiple forums for exchange of information. Many of the most > important persons in the Movement stopped reading CryoNet long ago, > due to the high noise level. I think that (the high noise level) is an entirely different issue. (I know it is the reason Paul stopped reading CryoNet, except occasionally when I bring something to his attention.) I do not see any way to avoid that problem other than having one or a small set of fair but strict moderators. Again with a Google or Yahoo group this is possible (I and Paul moderate every message at Yahoo MoreLife) and I think it is also available with pairlist and with most forums. The volume of messages on CryoNet appears to be sufficiently low that moderation would not be a large chore, particularly not if there were several moderators. Moderation would also completely remove the need for a rating system, at least for the purpose that the current CryoNet one was devised. > We are jeopardizing the future of the > Movement and the lives of cryonicists by poor coordination, which > would cost virtually nothing to correct. > > > > dss > > > David Stodolsky > Skype: davidstodolsky > > **Kitty Antonik Wakfer MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting --------------070800030508010802010901 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32486