X-Message-Number: 23975 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:53:11 -0400 From: randolfe wicker <> Subject: Tweaking form and use of ratings system Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Tweaking the form and use of cryonet's rating system is probably necessary. I agree with the objection to overly long numbers as the code to do the ratings. However, by minimizing the initial email and then retrieving it worked very easily for me this first time. I also saved it in my "cryonics" folder so I can retrieve it should I lose my written version. I don't think it is necessary to devise complicated mathematical divisions to decide which category of postings: "interesting" and/or "inflammatory". Usually, one can decide which single category best fits the posting in question. The more important question is what values are put on posting ratings. For instance, I thought Kennita's posting on this new rating system was both interesting and inflammatory. I finally opted for "inflammatory" because, to me, "inflammatory" is a term with more positive than negative connotations. I hate complacency and sometimes will make one of my own postings "inflammatory" in style just to provoke debate, get people's attention and change minds. This country was born in part because of Tom Paine's "inflammatory" leaflets for freedom. I don't like the idea of "Big Brother" hiding out in Kevin's apartment and engaging in thought control and censorship. I know many here have gotten angry at Kennita and others (me too) from time to time. However, we shouldn't start having an approval process for postings here the way they do at the Calorie Restriction site. The problem of too many postings might arise if cryonics gets good publicity. The calorie restriction site gets 50 to 80 postings a day and literally swamps a subscriber's mailbox. The number of posters has doubled in the past month due to media publicity. I and others have started deleting many without reading and are considering unsubscribing or accepting their "digest" option. The problem is that a "digest" puts selection in the hands of an editor and items that might be of special interest to you would not be included. Of all the ratings, "off topic" should be the one with the most negative connotation. In the past couple weeks, there were numerous postings about some philosopher which were totally beyond my comprehension and/or interest. Sometimes, "off-topic" debates (such as long ones about libertarians) might actually be of interest to me. However, they shouldn't take up space here. I think any censorship should not be based on tone--"inflammatory, interesting, informative, etc". The only postings that should be considered for deletion are those plainly off topic, those subjects that an overwhelming majority of people have "rated" as being "off-topic". We are all very intelligent here. Nanogirl's posting was, in my opinion, both informative and possibly off-topic. However, while I know nanotechnology is an important part of the developing Transhumanist dialogue and has important implications for possible revival of cryonics patients, I rated it as "informative" because that was the defining tone of that posting and I know Nanogril is an active member of Extropy Institute, etc. On the other hand, in the unlikely event that her posting lead to days of cryonets being filled with nothing but technical arguments about aspects of nanotechnology that was far beyond my own comprehension, I might reluctantly resort to "off topic" ratings. I better end here. Otherwise, I might receive Kevin's self-proposed "long-winded" rating. Cloningly yours, For eternal life, Randolph Wicker Founder, Clone Rights United Front, www.clonerights.com Spokesperson, Reproductive Cloning Network, www.reproductivecloning.net Advisor, The Immortality Institute, www.imminst.org Special Correspondent, www.stemcellsclub.com email: phone: 201-656-3280 Content-type: text/html; charset=Windows-1252 [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23975