On 4/11/06, Kevin Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > One of the earliest wish-list items was to allow more specific voting. > Maybe I am out of touch, but I was pretty surprised at how many people > wanted to be able to say things like "The file name is bogus, but the > bitrate, artist, and file type are all correct." Our most recent release > has a pretty general framework already in place to handle aribtrary > statements of this sort.
that seems reasonable; my wife frequently comes across music that has the wrong artist or title but sounds good and is worth keeping. in such a situation it would be nice to vote/rate a subset of the meta data individually, so the correct parts can be propagated while the incorrect bits are deprecated and replaced with accurate details. > The user interface can now generate statements about file types, bitrates, > and file names, and I don't see any reason not to add other things too. > The main issue is trying to keep the GUI simple, and being careful about > the schema. Details are in our nsdi paper due out in a few weeks. excellent; can you post an update here when it is available? the user interface issues are usually the crux of the problem, although a good interface can make explicit feedback useful and commonly used. (you understand my fondness of implicit metrics, good UI is not my forte :) > I guess the problem would be to define "relevant". In the existing > networks, queries tend to be short, vague, and have no context. Since it > is not at all obvious what the user is looking for in the first place, it > would be kind of hard to decide what is "relevant" in the file sharing > world. true. i should clarify that feedbackfs tracks user ID and program path (/bin/ls, /usr/bin/firefox, etc) so the relevance of a resource can vary greatly depending on the application and user. i tend to think of recommendation and relevance in a richer context where you have sequences of resources with detailed implicit metrics attached in distinct domains of usage (music, web documents, video, etc). this is a long term goal and different than simple keyword based searching where accurate meta data alone can provide relevant results in most cases. > I'm not too sure what Philippe's bounty is looking for, though. He doesn't > mention files, or sharing, but does mention "family functions on a global > level". Can someone clue me in to what that is? i'd like some more explanation as well. trust and reputation covers a lot of techniques and concepts. :) _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@zgp.org http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences: http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
