--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Frank Carver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sunday, December 4, 2005, 2:47:21 PM, Nerissa (TheVideoQueen) wrote: > > Why the "LET PEOPLE PICK A CATEGORY" argument will fail: > > Not everyone will tag their videos correctly ... > > And what about the ambiguous videos? ... > > Definately. > > > POSSIBLE SOLUTION #1: > > Let your community regulate itself and ban members for > > misbehaving. Use the Craigslist.org model. Allow your visitors to > > "flag" the posts. > > This solution will work, but only in the way that it will > > > POSSIBLE SOLUTION #2: > > Restrict adult category to a separate category requiring > > different service agreements and viewership agreements. > > What worries me about both these approaches is that (despite your > mention of "ambiguous videos" above) they both assume that (a) the > only thing people are concerned with is "porn",
I don't see that assumption. This is to deal with an issue that has come up recently in several places related to videoblogs. Other issues can be dealt with seperately. Because one issue like porn or violence, etc. is dealt with does not exclude dealing with other issues seperately. >and (b) that somehow > there is an objective definition of what "porn" is. > A determination does not have to be 100% correct to be useful. 99% or even as low as 90% determination can often be more useful than no determination. If the FDA determines that a drug that kills 3% of it's users should be banned even though it's useful for 97% of the others, it can still be a valid determination. > Neither of these assumptions really hold up in the wider context of > a global internet and varying world cultures. Should cannabilism films be allowed because some cultures had or have that practice? I do think that predetermining a video as adult by the hosting owner or a proxy is a good method as long as appeal is allowed. If people are looking to put up porn, there are locations that specificaly host them. -- Enric ======== http://www.cirne.com Determine the Media > > Not that you are the only one to fall foul of this misunderstanding - > the much-lauded Yahoo mediaRSS specification embodies the same naive > assumptions. > > May I propose a POSSIBLE SOLUTION #3: > > STEP 1: informative (rather than evaluative) tagging. > > Tagging is growing in popularity enormously - everywhere I look on the > web these days I tagging systems. This is enormously useful and > valuable. However, there is an (IMHO) unfortunatel trend toward > "evaluative" rather than "informative" tagging. > > Evaluative tagging is the kind used by the "watchthis" tag on > deli.icio.us, for example. I subscribe to this tag feed, and have seen > plenty of things on it that I would not have tagged in that way. > > Informative tagging on the other hand is the kind that helps a > potential audience understand the nature of the content before being > exposed to it. Tagging a piece with a location, author, participants, > length, format, etc. are a common form of informative tagging, but so > would "contains" tags such as "nudity" "sexual violence" "Christian > evangelism", "capitalism", "swearing", "flag burning". > > The advantage of informative tagging is that it allows each viewer to > construct his or her own filters appropriate to his or her own culture > and views. This avoids the problem of global definitions and allows > people to potentially reject anything they don't want to see, be it > porn, advertisments, George Bush, or whatever. > > STEP 2: trust relationships in tagging. > > Current tagging systems are essentially anonymous and untrusted. The > value they have is based generally on weight of numbers. The more > people who tag a particular item with a particular tag, the more > likely it is assumed to be valid. > > It might be better (particularly for items with relatively few tags or > taggers) if somehow the potential viewer could assign trust levels to > particular taggers. If (for example) I really trust Jay Dedman's > taste, then I can give his tags more weight than someone I have never > encountered. > > This becomes particularly important when tagging is used to filter out > unwanted material. > > STEP 3: a quarantine process. > > The problem with tagging as a filter mechanism is that (at present) > it's only realistically possible to filter for "positives". I can > already ask several services to give me a feed of all items tagged > with "java" AND "software" AND "development", for example, but asking > for all items NOT tagged with "Microsoft" is crazy talk. > > The main problem is that there is always a delay between an item > appearing and it accumulating enough tags to be useful. Current > systems add new items to a feed or category only when an appropriate > tag is applied, but an "exclusive" feed that worked in the same way > would never add any items. > > A quarantine process would certainly slow down the immediacy of items > appearing in categories and feeds, but could provide a better quality > of exclusion. If newly released or discovered items are somehow > "quarantined" by filter software until they have accumulated a certain > "weight" of tags, then it makes much more sense to consider the idea > of selecting all items without certain tags. > > I'm assuming that this sort of quarantine would be a user option on > directory and feed browsing software, to allow users to adjust their > own criteria and delays. > > > Comments? > > -- > Frank Carver http://www.makevideo.org.uk > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/KIlPFB/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
