> > I'm quite interested in that sort of thing (feedback seems to be an > essential mechanism in any intelligent system, after all, so > why not make it > explicit). But let me toss out a behavioral observation. > People are about > 10 times more likely to offer negative feedback.
Funny about that, isn't it. I guess it goes back the days when we threw rocks at each other on principle ;-). Further, > most of the time, > negative feedback is more detailed. Agreed. Many won't like it, but clear glasses are better than rose-colored. > > > If each message was stored in one database,like in a forum, > each message > > could be converted to a web form, so that as the reader > reads, feedback > > could be given at the time, without disrupting the reading > experience. > > And now a user interface observation -- people generally > won't bother to > give feedback if they have to change context. For example, > if you had to > visit my web site to give feedback, you probably wouldn't. > On the other > hand, if one could simply click a "This is stupid" or "This > is *really* > stupid" link embedded in the message, people would be far > more likely to > offer feedback. (Note that I've phrased the feedback to take > advantage of > the fact that people are more inclined to give negative feedback.) > > > >From this data, one could see if an idea had enough > penetration to cause > > miminal or widespread 'meme conversion". we could then test > my hypothesis > > about "meme immunity" by tallying votes. > > I'm not sure what you really mean by meme immunity. Can you > explain it as > if I'm a 10-year-old? This is what my notes say about it: "What about making an assumption that if a respondent who rarely responds to messages, does respond to someone who posts regularly, that this could be considered a meme that had an unusual effect. This could then be represented as a vector. The converse of this is that active responders are less 'vunerable' to individual meme effects. For example, I personally am more likely to respond to a meme, than to issue a new one to the group. It is also more likely that I will get little if any response back from the group, when compared to those people who post multple messages a day. I think that there is a relationship where if a person posts a lot of messages, that person is much more likely to get someone else to respond back to a individual or specific message. This suggests that there is a vunerability to those people who do not post often. While each person on the list equally recieves all messages, not every person is as likely to be affected by the memes contained in the messages. The degree of effect possible from any specific meme on any one individual is directly related to the sum of memes presented to the group from that same individual. Summarized, Memes are cumulatively defensive. The best example would be John and Jeroen, two of the top posters. They commonly appear to be 'immune' to each others ideas, and spend great amount of effort to defend their existing ideas... going for penetration into the other's thick skulls - The kill shot.. hitting a nerve... etc. I would think that this could be mathematically described much better, but I ain't no genius." So I guess what I am saying is that "Meme conversion" is a number value (scalar for you adults!) that represents a meme having an effect upon another. 'Meme immunity" is the degree that one resists new ideas and cummulatively defends existing ideas. I don't know if this would be scalar or boolean. Also remember that I have nothing to really base this hypothesis on other than gut feeling. However it can be tested using the scientific method using the vote tally method I described. > > > With this in mind, that it will change later, you should put > > placeholders in > > the design or schema to allow for vote tallying. > > I have some placeholders for unknown ratings, so it's > certainly possible. > > > The code to separate one idea from another should be pretty easy > > (unless the > > poster posts using HTML ;-} ). > > I'm not sure what you mean there... Separate where? You could use the breaks where people insert their responses in messages. If there is a break in the >, that would delimit an idea. This poses a problem if someone does not delimit their response. If a common interface is used it would prevent these problems. At worst, a vote marker would be put in an inappropiate place. You could separate out those vote markers that get no response as errors. I have been thinking about this for a while, and I think that it could be a discussion forum of the future, combining instant opinions on what people write. At the same time... it reminds me of the cute paper notes kids would pass back to each other in school... ____________________ Do you like Suzie? _ yes _ no ____________________ Nerd From Hell > > Nick
