> At the risk of beating Vipul to the punch, it would be nice if: > > 1. People read the past discussions on this particular topic in the > mailing list archives, including Vipul's response, and
My initial mail was to the effect of "I could not find what I wanted to know in the archives/FAQ, so I am asking here". If there is a particularly relevant thread, a link or some search criteria would be much appreciated. I really didn't mean to stir the hornet's nest, and just wanted an answer to a specific question, which I got (Q: what is the TeS protocol/algorithm; A: Sorry, It is closed). > 2. People would stop assuming we're: > a. that dumb (clearly some of you must), Being unaware of something, and being dumb are entirely different concepts. That aside, my comments about pointing out that open trust system exist and are viable were for the people who made the original responses to my query who had obviously not heard of them. > c. basing our 100k+ -user service on ideas and technology whose > only protection is the fact that we're "obscuring" it by not > disclosing it. The number of larger companies that do exactly that with larger systems is sufficiently high that I don't think you can really fault people for jumping to that conclusion. The fact that there isn't a public list reasons why the algorithm is closed only encourages that conclusion. > Hey, we want this system to work as well as you do, and in fact > moreso! But Vipul's comments from an older but similar thread bear > repeating: > TeS is perhaps one of the most significant differentiators against any > other service of this kind, and as such we have not spent any small > amount of time designing it, implementing it, or tweaking it. Its > algorithms have not yet been disclosed, and may never be, but that > does not mean it's got some major flaw we are hiding from the public. > The system works, people _are_ trying to game it actively every day, > and TeS is working extremely well against those individuals. I guess the crux of the confusion is that people aren't necessarily attacking the design by questioning what it is. I obviously can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I am much less likely to use a system that so heavily relies on trust and goodwill if the person I trust most, myself, can't even verify it's correctness/effectiveness. The fact that I am told that the system does an excellent job of preventing abuse, or that the designers have spent a lot of time designing/tweaking it tells me little about how correct it is. Anyway, I'm going to stop annoying people. If I really had a issue with this, I would shut up and go implement this project myself, my own way. You guys have a good product, and you deserve thanks for it. Don't misinterpret my questions as critiques, and keep up the good work. - Rob . ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
