Evan Daniel schrieb:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> A small number could still be rather large. Having thousands see it
>>> ought to suffice. For the current network, I see no reason not to
>>> have the (default) limits such that basically everyone sees it.
>> If you
Evan Daniel schrieb:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, xor wrote:
>> On Friday 22 May 2009 16:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>>
>>> wrote:
On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
> Is'nt his point that the users ju
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau
>> wrote:
A small number could still be rather large. ?Having thousands see it
ought to suffice. ?For the current network, I see no reason not to
have the
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> A small number could still be rather large. ?Having thousands see it
>> ought to suffice. ?For the current network, I see no reason not to
>> have the (default) limits such that basically everyone sees it.
>
> If your small number is that bi
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
A small number could still be rather large. Having thousands see it
ought to suffice. For the current network, I see no reason not to
have the (de
Evan Daniel schrieb:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> A small number could still be rather large. Having thousands see it
>>> ought to suffice. For the current network, I see no reason not to
>>> have the (default) limits such that basically everyone sees it.
>> If you
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> A small number could still be rather large. Having thousands see it
>> ought to suffice. For the current network, I see no reason not to
>> have the (default) limits such that basically everyone sees it.
>
> If your small number is that bi
Evan Daniel schrieb:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, xor wrote:
>> On Friday 22 May 2009 16:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>>
>>> wrote:
On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Is'nt his point that the users just
On Friday 22 May 2009 16:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
>
> wrote:
> > On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
> >> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
> >> I thought that is the problem that he m
On Saturday 23 May 2009 21:11:59 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:06 AM, 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 wh
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, xor wrote:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 16:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>
>> wrote:
>> > On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
>> >> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, xor wrote:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 16:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
>>
>> wrote:
>> > On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> >> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust li
On Friday 22 May 2009 16:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
>
> wrote:
> > On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
> >> I thought that is the problem that he mean
On Saturday 23 May 2009 21:11:59 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:06 AM, 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 wh
On Friday 22 May 2009 17:22:45 Evan Daniel wrote:
> No, that is not sufficient. The attack that makes it necessary (which
> is also possible on FMS, btw -- in fact it's even more effective) is
> fairly simple. A spammer gets a dummy identity trusted manually by
> other people. He then has it mar
>
> No one can really censor FMS alright, BUT there IS a problem with those
> 'censored trust lists' anyway. The existance of censored trust lists forces
> users to actively maintain their own trust lists, the WoT wont work 'on its
> own' as it would if everyone used it the way it's supposed to.
>
On Friday 22 May 2009 17:22:45 Evan Daniel wrote:
> No, that is not sufficient. The attack that makes it necessary (which
> is also possible on FMS, btw -- in fact it's even more effective) is
> fairly simple. A spammer gets a dummy identity trusted manually by
> other people. He then has it mar
>
> No one can really censor FMS alright, BUT there IS a problem with those
> 'censored trust lists' anyway. The existance of censored trust lists forces
> users to actively maintain their own trust lists, the WoT wont work 'on its
> own' as it would if everyone used it the way it's supposed to.
>
On Saturday, 23. May 2009 16:06:51 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 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?
Not if the
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 e
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:06 AM, 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
On Friday 22 May 2009 22:38:43 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> >> - Making CAPTCHA announcement provide some form of short-lived trust,
> >> so if
> >> the newly introduced identity doesn't get some trust it goes away.
> >> Th
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
On Saturday, 23. May 2009 16:06:51 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 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?
Not if the
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>> > We want to make it easy, or nobody will do it. Poring over your trust list
>> > day after day is not most people's idea of fun.
>> >
>> > There are three approaches, given positive trust only. Depending on the
>> > level of effort ex
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:06 AM, 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
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
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 e
On Friday 22 May 2009 22:38:43 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> >> - Making CAPTCHA announcement provide some form of short-lived trust,
> >> so if
> >> the newly introduced identity doesn't get some trust it goes away.
> >> Th
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>> > We want to make it easy, or nobody will do it. Poring over your trust list
>> > day after day is not most people's idea of fun.
>> >
>> > There are three approaches, given positive trust only. Depending on the
>> > level of effort ex
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> In contrast, Advogato has multiple levels of trust, and each identity
> either trusts or does not trust each other identity at a given level.
...
> This implies running Ford-Fulkerson or similar; it's more complicated
> than the current system, thoug
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.
The spam tag would mean tha
On Friday 22 May 2009 18:59:47 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Sachau
> wrote:
> > Evan Daniel schrieb:
> >> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Sachau
> >> wrote:
> >>> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com
On Friday 22 May 2009 15:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
> >> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
> >> I thought that is the problem that he mea
> FMS is as good as dead, and that's why I think that invesiting develpers'
> time and effort into WoT and Freetalk is a huge waste: FMS failed because of
> human stupidity and arrogance, and so will Freetalk/WoT, and I really cant
> understand why the devs cant see the obvious (or refuse to ad
Evan Daniel schrieb:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Sachau
> wrote:
>> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
>>> On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
I thought that is the problem that he mean
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>> - Making CAPTCHA announcement provide some form of short-lived trust,
>> so if
>> the newly introduced identity doesn't get some trust it goes away. This
>> may
>> also be implemented.
>> >>> This would require
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 15:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
>> >> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain
Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
>> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
>> I thought that is the problem that he meant how can Advogato help us
>> here?
>
> Advogato with only positive trust introduces
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>> - Making CAPTCHA announcement provide some form of short-lived trust,
>> so if
>> the newly introduced identity doesn't get some trust it goes away. This
>> may
>> also be implemented.
>> >>> This would require
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> In contrast, Advogato has multiple levels of trust, and each identity
> either trusts or does not trust each other identity at a given level.
...
> This implies running Ford-Fulkerson or similar; it's more complicated
> than the current system, thoug
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.
The spam tag would mean tha
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 15:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> >> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain th
On Friday 22 May 2009 18:59:47 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> > Evan Daniel schrieb:
> >> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Sachau
> >> wrote:
> >>> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Sachau
>> wrote:
>>> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain t
On Saturday 09 May 2009 17:57:41 gulli at gmx.org wrote:
> Interesting discussion from Frost, especially the last post at the bottom.
Its about WoTs in general and why they won't work.
>
>
>
> - Hahahahah at YLE3ZHs5LkiwE3FdJyQlcF5+RkA - 2009.04.05 -
02:28:11GMT -
>
> I had to for
On Friday 22 May 2009 15:39:06 Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
> >> I thought that is the problem that he meant.
On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
> I thought that is the problem that he meant how can Advogato help us
here?
Advogato with only positive trust introduces a different tradeoff, which is
still
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
>> On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
>>> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
>>> I thought that is the problem that he meant how can Advogato help us
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Evan Daniel schrieb:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trus
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
>> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
>> I thought that is the problem that he meant how can Advogato help us
> here?
>
> Advogato with on
> FMS is as good as dead, and that's why I think that invesiting develpers'
> time and effort into WoT and Freetalk is a huge waste: FMS failed because of
> human stupidity and arrogance, and so will Freetalk/WoT, and I really cant
> understand why the devs cant see the obvious (or refuse to ad
Evan Daniel schrieb:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
>>> On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
I thought that is the problem that he meant
Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
I thought that is the problem that he meant how can Advogato help us here?
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 05:51, Evan Daniel wrote:
> It's not all that interesting. ?It has been discussed to death many
> times. ?The Advogato algorit
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
>> On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
>>> I thought that is the problem that he meant how can Advogato help us
>>
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:57 AM, wrote:
> Interesting discussion from Frost, especially the last post at the bottom.
> Its about WoTs in general and why they won't work.
>
There are no (new) interesting bits.
The pain is well known among developers, repeating/explaining won't change it.
If yo
Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
>> I thought that is the problem that he meant how can Advogato help us
>> here?
>
> Advogato with only positive trust introduces a d
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
>> I thought that is the problem that he meant how can Advogato help us
> here?
>
> Advogato with only
On Saturday 09 May 2009 17:57:41 gu...@gmx.org wrote:
> Interesting discussion from Frost, especially the last post at the bottom.
Its about WoTs in general and why they won't work.
>
>
>
> - hahaha...@yle3zhs5lkiwe3fdjyqlcf5+rka - 2009.04.05 -
02:28:11GMT -
>
> I had to forward t
On Friday 22 May 2009 08:17:55 bbac...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
> I thought that is the problem that he meant how can Advogato help us
here?
Advogato with only positive trust introduces a different tradeoff, which is
still a
Is'nt his point that the users just won't maintain the trust lists?
I thought that is the problem that he meant how can Advogato help us here?
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 05:51, Evan Daniel wrote:
> It's not all that interesting. It has been discussed to death many
> times. The Advogato algorit
It's not all that interesting. It has been discussed to death many
times. The Advogato algorithm (or something like it) solves this
problem (not perfectly, but far, far better than the current FMS / WoT
alchemy), as I have explained in great detail.
Evan Daniel
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM,
It's not all that interesting. It has been discussed to death many
times. The Advogato algorithm (or something like it) solves this
problem (not perfectly, but far, far better than the current FMS / WoT
alchemy), as I have explained in great detail.
Evan Daniel
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:57 PM,
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:57 AM, wrote:
> Interesting discussion from Frost, especially the last post at the bottom.
> Its about WoTs in general and why they won't work.
>
There are no (new) interesting bits.
The pain is well known among developers, repeating/explaining won't change it.
If yo
Interesting discussion from Frost, especially the last post at the bottom. Its
about WoTs in general and why they won't work.
- hahaha...@yle3zhs5lkiwe3fdjyqlcf5+rka - 2009.04.05 - 02:28:11GMT -
I had to forward this one here.
--- jezreel℺X~GLTTHo9aaYtIpGT6OOyBMMFwl3b8LwFu6TUw
Interesting discussion from Frost, especially the last post at the bottom. Its
about WoTs in general and why they won't work.
- Hahahahah at YLE3ZHs5LkiwE3FdJyQlcF5+RkA - 2009.04.05 - 02:28:11GMT
-
I had to forward this one here.
--- jezreel?X~GLTTHo9aaYtIpGT6OOyBMMFwl3b8LwFu
68 matches
Mail list logo
