[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] > - ... the mailing list > simply records # of posts written by each poster. call > this "P" > > - mailing list records # of times someone wrote > a post that was replied to. ... call this "R" > > - pseudoreputation is a measure of the above two > parameters. one can experiment with different > metrics/weightings as a combination. e.g. x*P + y*R etc
Aha, a simple formula for personal signal-to-noise. This could be extended to include other factors, such as quoting style (where Q is pecentage of mail quoted without reply). Many Fidonet groups used to contain frequent statistics on best and worst posters/quoters/etc. An automated reputation system based upon postings and replies is all to open to abuse though. Especially in a group such as this, where people post under several different addresses. Reputation-bumping through conversations with self (enlightenment turned practical?) would be too easy without further measures that hindered the simplicity of mailing lists. > - mailing list outputs current reputation alongside > peoples posts. I.e. if my reputation value is currently > [x], there's a "reputation-value: x" field output > in outgoing msgs. this is available for filtering > by end users. Fine for those of us whose mail clients don't support customized headers, or can't telnet to port 25. > - mailing list might also support a filter > such that people can toss out msgs from sources with > too low a reputation by their specification. Or with too high - must be some kind of niche market for people that want to read crap, look at the kind of forwards I get every day ;) > - I propose that those with low reputations are not > bounced from the list, only given quotas. say the > lower the reputation goes, the fewer msgs per day > they are allowed to post. Ick - as soon as you start to limit people's postings then you're probably in for trouble. While it may be of benefit to the list as a whole to prevent a person from repeatedly posting nonsensicals, the reputational scalability infers that people who would otherwise be able to comment as many times as they liked on any thread that they liked would suddenly find themselves having to choose which messages to reply to, and lo, the whole idea in this case of both the list and moderation of that list, that of encouraging conversation, is endangered. perhaps some kind of cut off point *might* work, with some experimenting as to its boundary, but I am much more in favour of client-specific filtering of message reading rather than writing. A supplementary web-based interface would be almost essential under a filtered system, I think. The ability to refer to messages you would otherwise never have read is important. > the tweaking would have a lot to do with the > weighting of the reputation, etcetera. it could also be tweaked differently according to the type of group, too - discussion and announce lists could be within the same barn, just viewed under different parameters. > none of this requires moderation or a lot of extra > activity, which I think is absolutely crucial in > any workable system. nobody wants it to be any work > at all. And how many people, in _general_ (Yahoogroups, MSN communities et al, as opposed to on CP), would probably not bother with moderation at all, but be content to simply hit "delete" for any irrelevant messages? In fact, how many would actually *reply* to the trolls? ;) .g
