<HTML><BODY>
<div>From: robla@robla.net<br>
> > And a meta note, I guess the "election methods" list isn't just for that <br>
> > little issue of "voting" and "elections" anymore. Sometimes we branch out <br>
> > into the whole field of the organization of democratic societies.<br>
> <br>
> I think what I'm proposing is for voting and elections, but the target<br>
> structure is not a typical government leader.<br>
<br>
It seems that what you want is just a filtering system. However, <br>
maybe that could also be considered a concensus system.<br>
<br>
It could become an election system if it was combined with a <br>
voting method. If it was really good at achieving concensus the vote<br>
could require a supermajority.<br>
<br>
For example, the method would be:<br>
<br>
Anyone can submit a proposal for a change as an article. Also, they can<br>
submit an article about a specific change proposal.<br>
<br>
The filtering system makes sure that the "good" articles become well known.<br>
<br>
A change requires a simple yes/no type vote. Anyone who abstains is<br>
considered a no vote. This means that to implement a change, your idea<br>
must be supported by the majority and become well known. Depending on<br>
how good the system is at achieving concensus, a supermajority could <br>
even be required.<br>
<br>
Also, two proposals could be linked such that they together are <br>
supported by the majority.<br>
<br>
For example, the utility of 2 changed A and B could be different <br>
for each group 1, 2 and 3<br>
<br>
Proposal A<br>
1: +10<br>
2: -10<br>
3: -5<br>
<br>
Proposal B<br>
1: -5<br>
2: -10<br>
3: +10<br>
<br>
Both would only have support of one group in 3. However,<br>
<br>
Proposal A+B<br>
1: +5<br>
2: -20<br>
3: +5<br>
<br>
would have support of 2/3 and thus be passed.<br>
<br>
>From a social utility point of view this is actually bad. (Total <br>
utility drops). This could be solved by requiring a supermajority.<br>
<br>
Arguably, one of the benefits of a really good concensus builder is <br>
that it lets you require a higher supermajority to get things passed,<br>
without it causing deadlock. This prevents more things that are <br>
on balance a bad idea from being implemented.<br>
<br>
> <br>
> > Problems:<br>
> > Too much stuff<br>
> > Too much mediocre stuff<br>
> > Too much good stuff getting lost<br>
> > Different users desire to see different content<br>
<br>
<filtering><br>
<br>
> > Web user interface is often slow and limited<br>
<br>
well that is a tech question and is getting better. Also, there is a <br>
reasonable amount of custom code that is possible. What kind of interface<br>
were you thinking of ?<br>
<br>
> Those are problems for readers. However, if you're a writer who isn't<br>
> yet one of the "cool kids", you've got those problems, plus:<br>
> * Small incentive for people to read your stuff<br>
<br>
So you need to create an incentive. Clearly being a popular writer<br>
is incentive for alot of people. Perhaps adding a system where <br>
reviewers are also given a rating.<br>
<br>
A user could have a high writer "score" and/or a high reviewer "score".<br>
<br>
In theory, there could be lots of ratings. However, to keep it simple<br>
lets say there is just 2. <br>
<br>
Accuracy -- This is your opinion of the accuracy of another reviewer's <br>
ratings<br>
<br>
Interesting - This is your opinion of how interesting an article is<br>
<br>
The system could work as follows:<br>
<br>
To determine the interesting score of an article, the following process<br>
is followed by the system<br>
<br>
1) Check if you have rated it<br>
If so, return<br>
Accuracy: 1.0 (or maybe allow you to set it lower)<br>
Rating: The rating you gave it<br>
<br>
2) Pick a random user who you have an accuracy rating for AND<br>
who has rated the article<br>
<br>
Poll their opinion of the article<br>
Update your rating and accuracy estimate based on<br>
Your opinion of their accuracy<br>
Their opinion of the accuracy of their rating<br>
Their stated rating<br>
<br>
3) Return to 2 until you have reasonable accuracy or have tried<br>
a threshold of users.<br>
<br>
Every time you rate an article, it checks who else has rated the <br>
article. Your opinion of the other user's review skill is <br>
modified based on how closely they rated the article compared<br>
to you. The lower they rate the accuracy of a given rating,<br>
the less of an effect it has on their score.<br>
<br>
This means that if someone rated unrated articles quickly, <br>
they will be checked against everyone who rates the article<br>
later. This means that early and accurate ratings are <br>
encouraged.<br>
<br>
The system would go on automatically. You will compute ratings<br>
based on your opinion of other reviewer's ability. These will<br>
then propagate based on other users' opinion of your rating<br>
ability. Also, your accuracy ratings will be updated. <br>
Everyone will then get a personal rating for each article. <br>
<br>
The more articles they rate the more consistant the score they <br>
get for the articles. This should balance out. If users are <br>
getting bad accuracy ratings, they can improve it by rating<br>
more articles. This improves everyone's ratings quality.<br>
<br>
> * Too much riding on SENSATIONAL headline<br>
> * No motivation for readers to step outside their comfort zone if what<br>
> you present doesn't reinforce their world view.<br>
<br>
If there is a decay on older ratings, then perhaps a person could <br>
move from their comfort zone. For example, they might read an<br>
"interesting" article that moves their comfort zone slightly. However,<br>
it wouldn't be a massive change, so won't trigger the "this is an <br>
'enemy' viewpoint, must switch off reason and switch to 'tribe' mode" <br>
effect.<br>
<br>
> * No way of knowing where you really stand, and who you should lobby<br>
> next<br>
<br>
I guess you could include a report of who tends to rate your <br>
writings lowly. Also, quite possibly, the users would split into <br>
groups. A group wouldn't have a hard edge and would consist of<br>
writers and reviewers who tend to rate each other's accuracy and<br>
interestingness highly.<br>
<br>
Maybe this could be displayed graphically. You could even see<br>
"nearby" users as potential people to convince to agree with your<br>
opinion.<br>
<br>
> > So, in summary, I think what I want is:<br>
> > Variable Share Instant Proxy with Direct option - Representatives <br>
> > get as much share as they have constituency. Anyone can vote directly on <br>
> > anything if they choose.<br>
> > Implicit Proxy - Extracted from various user actions, up-rating <br>
> > comments, recommending diaries, etc.<br>
> > Explicit Proxy, Explicit acclaim - when the user takes the time to <br>
> > say "I like this other user!" that should be overriding or heavily <br>
> > weighted.<br>
> > Randomized Presentation - show a mix of directly desired, <br>
> > indirectly desired, popular acclaim and random content. Promote <br>
> > recommended content through the network of the recommender out to the <br>
> > wider community.<br>
> > <br>
> > And yes, I may just get busy and code it myself, but writing a brand new <br>
> > wiki/blog/community infrastructure from the ground up (because PHP sucks <br>
> > and perl is cumbersome at large scale) will take a while.<br>
> <br>
> Yeah, whatever system would need to be bolted onto the side of some<br>
> existing system, I think, in order to be viable.<br>
<br>
I think another big issue is that something like this is actually annoying<br>
until you hit the scaling issues. In a forum with say 20 users, you don't<br>
actually need it. However, by the time a forum hits the "big time", the<br>
system is already in place. Changing it to a system that scales better<br>
is harder at that point.<br>
<br>
I think that a possible method would be to find some community that is <br>
suffering from the scaling problem and offer them a solution. <br>
<br>
On forums, there is sometimes a rating system. However, they seem to <br>
just be a +1 button you can hit as people abuse it. In the suggestion<br>
above, that should be less effective as badly rating someone will just<br>
mean others will lower their accuracy rating of you. Also, in a <br>
conversation type format, blanking out posts results in the "flow" <br>
being lost. (though I guess that is exactly what a proxy system is <br>
designed to solve).<br>
<br>
I wonder if a way to do it would be to have good/neutral/bad for <br>
articles/posts by default. However, a post that achieves a strong<br>
good score might switch to the users being able to choose <br>
very good/good/neutral. The users are always given 3 choices<br>
centred on the current score.<br>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_273e5619-d164-4b5d-9a33-7abc36ddbe8f -->
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>