From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:37:39 -0800 (PST)
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Why PICS is the wrong approach
In-Reply-To: <32B043D8.4AC6@gte.net>
Message-ID: <199612130137.RAA10448@netcom13.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>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.

"you know"? get a clue, please. these systems are not at all like
the record rating systems you get in stores. I sympathize with
your plight however and agree that the record labeling system
is a lame way to go about it. all the more reason to support things
like firefly and grouplens (another interesting system that may
have inspired firefly, do a yahoo search to find it). superior
rating systems will begin to flourish instead of inferior ones...