From: blanc <blancw@accessone.com>
To: “‘Vladimir Z. Nuri’” <vznuri@netcom.com>
Message Hash: 7719fcc534fddaf6efc79d7f62b570a6908f016e3e0aaea59da3ccc1a65f0109
Message ID: <01BB3ED3.D79972C0@blancw.accessone.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-11 12:14:29 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 20:14:29 +0800
From: blanc <blancw@accessone.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 20:14:29 +0800
To: "'Vladimir Z. Nuri'" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: RE: self-ratings vs. market ratings
Message-ID: <01BB3ED3.D79972C0@blancw.accessone.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>From Vladimir Z. Nuri (just when I thought it was over):
".......PICS is a very flexible architecture and I hope it will be
"used in many ingenious ways not previously foreseen."
Guess so.
. How long do "cool sites" stay "hot"?
. How long would web pages rated "sexual content" keep that rating?
. Many sites are casually rated as "cool" for the fun of it.
. Why are controversial pages rated?
. What motivated Yahoo to begin featuring Top 5 Sites of the Week?
. What motivates those who are calling for mandatory rating?
"but in a sense, this is what you do whenever you read a book
or a newspaper. you are reading information screened by
someone else."
You could say that *all* communication is a rating, then. All evaluations are ratings (as are all emotions, and all modifying terms in grammar. Art is a rating on life, as love is a rating on others). But an individual must decide how much screening they can tolerate before they become useless to themselves (or: *whose* rating is important?)
Many things help us to make judgements, to aid us in arriving at conclusions. Ratings present the conclusion itself: rather than assisting, by reasoning and discussion (or argument) in the development of judgement, they present a final evaluation. They leave out the middle, where the work of thought takes place.
"ratings are not a substitute for personal judgement. they are
meant to be a method to aid thinking, not to replace it, imho."
They can do that, in a very reduced, limited way. I myself think that even short descriptions are more informative and useful. You can reduce communication to such constricted labels that it loses all meaning.
Or as Beavis n Butthead would posit: uh - uh; uh - uh
(hee-hee. It just occurred to me how dogs mark their territory. You could call *that* a rating, too. THIS site is MINE, honey!!)
..
Blanc
Return to May 1996
Return to “blanc <blancw@accessone.com>”
1996-05-11 (Sat, 11 May 1996 20:14:29 +0800) - RE: self-ratings vs. market ratings - blanc <blancw@accessone.com>