Brian Atkins wrote:
>What do you think of Harvey's refinement that simply diverts the
>threads to a secondary list? No censorship there.
If my tastes are offbeat I would be constantly switching between lists: your
killfile and mine won't be exact matches. Of course if much of the community
agrees that someone is a bozo I would want to factor that into my personal
filter. But I want more features than just that; there still might be too
much traffic on the primary list for me to go through when time is tight. I
would much prefer to have deal with one list which meets my tastes. Rather
than just sharing killfiles (that's sooo negative), this can be accomplished
using collaborative filtering, as Sasha described.
BTW, the two-tier idea has been around for a while. Sarah Marr and Gregory
Burch created the idea of "NodeNets" organized by topic area: invited "ExI
Professional Fellows" could post, but all others would be read-only
"Observers." See <http://www.extropy.com/nodenet/nodenet.htm> for more
At the Foresight Senior Associates Gathering last month, it was announced
that Ka-Ping Yee (lead developer of CritLink) has developed a system called
Headspaces which might also be thought of as two-tier
<http://www.headspaces.com/>. In this system, you have the option of
receiving only the first message in a new thread. If it is of interest, you
can go to the website and view the messages you missed and/or subscribe to
the rest of the thread. You can also unsubscribe from threads, of course.
This has some similarity to Harvey's idea in that some messages show up in
your email, and others go to the archive (by default). But it lacks the
rating system to determine when a thread has run its course.
--- Sean Morgan Javien Canada Inc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:36 MDT