On Thursday 07 May 2009 21:32:42 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Sachau <mail at tommyserver.de> wrote: > > Evan Daniel schrieb: > >> I don't have any specific ideas for how to choose whether to ignore > >> identities, but I think you're making the problem much harder than it > >> needs to be. ?The problem is that you need to prevent spam, but at the > >> same time prevent malicious non-spammers from censoring identities who > >> aren't spammers. ?Fortunately, there is a well documented algorithm > >> for doing this: the Advogato trust metric. > >> > >> The WoT documentation claims it is based upon the Advogato trust > >> metric. ?(Brief discussion: http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html > >> Full paper: http://www.levien.com/thesis/compact.pdf ) ?I think this > >> is wonderful, as I think there is much to recommend the Advogato > >> metric (and I pushed for it early on in the WoT discussions). > >> However, my understanding of the paper and what is actually > >> implemented is that the WoT code does not actually implement it. > >> Before I go into detail, I should point out that I haven't read the > >> WoT code and am not fully up to date on the documentation and > >> discussions; if I'm way off base here, I apologize. > > > > I think, you are: > > > > The advogato idea may be nice (i did not read it myself), if you have exactly 1 trustlist for > > everything. But xor wants to implement 1 trustlist for every app as people may act differently e.g. > > on firesharing than on forums or while publishing freesites. You basicly dont want to censor someone > > just because he tries to disturb filesharing while he may be tries to bring in good arguments at > > forum discussions about it. > > And i dont think that advogato will help here, right? > > There are two questions here. The first question is given a set of > identities and their trust lists, how do you compute the trust for an > identity the user has not rated? The second question is, how do you > determine what trust lists to use in which contexts? The two > questions are basically orthogonal. > > I'm not certain about the contexts issue; Toad raised some good > points, and while I don't fully agree with him, it's more complicated > than I first thought. I may have more to say on that subject later. > > Within a context, however, the computation algorithm matters. The > Advogato idea is very nice, and imho much better than the current WoT > or FMS answers. You should really read their simple explanation page. > It's really not that complicated; the only reasons I'm not fully > explaining it here is that it's hard to do without diagrams, and they > already do a good job of it.
It's nice, but it doesn't work. Because the only realistic way for positive trust to be assigned is on the basis of posted messages, in a purely casual way, and without the sort of permanent, universal commitment that any pure-positive-trust scheme requires: If he spams on any board, if I ever gave him trust and haven't changed that, then *I AM GUILTY* and *I LOSE TRUST* as the only way to block the spam. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090507/7f428f09/attachment.pgp>
