From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:59:09 -0800 (PST)
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Why PICS is the wrong approach
In-Reply-To: <199612130137.RAA10448@netcom13.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <32B11A3E.3304@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> >If Firefly is an example of what PICS is or could become, the hell with
> >PICS.  Firefly encourages and rewards group behavior and suppresses
> >individuality.  Firefly would reward the discussion of the latest album
> >by a Columbia or Capitol artist, and discourage discussion of material
> >from independent (real independent) labels.  I know because I've been
> >there and spent quite a bit of time trying to get a rating.

> this is absolutely ridiculous. the rating system is designed to
> be incredibly individualized. it uses sophisticated statistical
> techniques to find the correlations in your UNIQUE ratings given
> over a set of items with other people's ratings, and weighs
> future ratings based on these correlations. it may be even
> dealing with anti-correlations. in fact what you have, in effect,
> is a system with *no* hardwired ratings. the ratings space is
> different for *every*single*person* who uses the service.

As I said, I spent considerable time there, and typed in considerable
data.  I used the help facilities, and I corresponded with the persons
who do support.  Firefly was not able to make a single correlation or
suggestion for me, which BTW, Alexander Chislenko acknowledged as a
weakness of the (current/old) Firefly system.  Perhaps you should ask him
what the problem is, if you have a curiosity about it.

[snip]