On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 15:06 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Saturday 23 May 2009 10:43:09 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > On Friday, 22. May 2009 23:10:42 Mike Bush wrote: > > > I have been watching this debate an I was wondering whether it could > > > help to have 2 sets of trust values for each identity in a trust list, > > > this could mean you could mark an identity as spamming or that I don't > > > want to see these posts again as i find them objectionable. > > > > This is what Credence did in the end for spam detection on Gnutella, so it > > might fit the human psyche :) > > > > People got the option to say "that's bad quality or misleading", "I don't > > like > > it" or "that's spam". > > > > For messages that could be > > > > * "that ID posts spam" > > * "that ID posts crap" > > > > The first can easily be reviewed, the second is subjective. That would give > > a > > soft group censorship option, but give the useful spam detection to > > everyone. > > > > Best wishes, > > Arne > > > > PS: Yes, I mostly just tried to clarify Mikes post for me. I hope the > > mail's > > useful to you nontheless. > > People will game the system, no? If they think paedophiles are scum who > should not be allowed to speak, and they realise that clicking "This is spam" > is more effective than "This is crap", they will click the former, no?
Yes but offering this could separate those who wish to mark what they are objected to and don't wish to see from those who wish to censor other peoples views of the service against their will. I don't think the first group should be a problem if they have this option. Surely it depends on what proportion are in each group, I've not used FMS, maybe someone who uses it has some idea whether these groups exist.
