Distributed Trust Metrics? 39
"I've done some googling for systems that might work in a distributed fashion but turned up nothing. I'd happily register a key with an authority (ideally a distributed one, think supernodes rather than centralized structure) and have it verify my identity. Then, at each website participating in the trust network, I can provide my identity upon registration. As people moderate me and my comments, this feedback is applied to my profile both locally and network wide. The idea is that I may be all wet when it comes to tractors, but relatively well read on politics and technology (i.e.: my overall trustworthiness would be a 7, with a 3 on misc.rural, a 8 on slashdot.org and a 10 on poliglut.org). Now readers of my commentary have a more reasonable way of judging my trustworthiness on both a local and a global scale."
Hmm. (Score:1)
Small sites need... (Score:1, Insightful)
What I'd Do: (Score:5, Interesting)
2) enable the ability to 'bozo-bin' someone: their account can be made so that they can still post, and they can see their posts, but noone else can. Most bozos won't even know they've been binned, and thus will not try to create a new account to get around it. Think of it as a honey pot for trolls.
3) Check for bozos all coming from the same domain - likely the same bozo who has realized he's been binned, and has created a new email address from (probably) his own domain - so bin all accounts from that domain.
That should cut down on the vast majority of problems, I'd think. Also, with a 'small' site, as you say, moderation doesn't work well. Well, with a SMALL site, you don't _need_ moderators to handle the load, so that should work out well, right?
Re:all from the same domain huh... (Score:2)
And I never said that part would have to be automatic, either. Use your head, squirrel-bait.
Re:What I'd Do: (Score:2)
Re:What I'd Do: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:What I'd Do: (Score:2)
I would like to amend this:
"bin" people who sign on with the same IP address as a recent "bozo", or with a cookie that matches a cookie given to "bozo"'s original handle. However, if bozo@hotmail.com trolls, finds he's being blocked, and then switches to bozo2@hotmail.com, do not block *@hotmail
Re:What I'd Do: (Score:2)
Re:What I'd Do: (Score:2)
Re:What I'd Do: (Score:2)
A long letter laced with profanities to your state congressman would probably cause future letters to be thrown out without a second thought, even if they contained a brillant plan to save your state from raising taxes and cutting services in a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall. This is no different.
Strict blocking policy (Score:1, Funny)
Epinions.com (Score:4, Interesting)
It works very well on small samples, IMHO. In fact, I believe a Web of Trust doesn't scale in the thousands, or hundreds of thousands, because of the dilution of the metric.
Also, since you run a political website, a Web of Trust can help to "cluster" similar points of view.
Social and Technical cannot be separated (Score:1)
In summary, Technical and Social issues are inextricably linked, and what you're really looking for is a group of people to take on a governmental role for your website(s).
Here's an idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:1)
Comment (Score:1)
Linkfilter seems to have an interesting system. (Score:2)
Really though, the system doesn't matter much. You have two choices, make it the way you like it or make it so customizable that the content forms itself in the manner that matters most to the reader. (For example on
Personally, I reccomend deciding now if you want a clique that agrees with you or an open site filled with conten
Doesn't scale... (Score:1)
Kill files. (Score:2)
NOT Distributed, but Similar Direction (Score:1)
Affero [affero.com]: Rating & Reputation Service for Online Works
The real effect of public moderation. (Score:2)
This story on Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] entered a living hell when the sites being discussed sent their members to go get accounts and start stuffing the ballots.
Even controlled moderation would fail simply because the signal/noise ratio at the bottom level becomes so out of whack that no one wants to dive in the sewer on the chance of finding a diamond.
The Identity Commons (Score:2)
As you suggest, a distributed, global (federated) identity would make this all a lot easier and work a lot better. Persistent profile information is powerful and offers many advantages to citizens, corporations and all those middlemen, but can lead to serious privacy abuses if the information is not securely - and absolutely - controlled by the profile owner.
The fact that global identity is so valuable has not escaped the eye of marketing departments everywhere, and there are several projects aimed
Affero (Score:2)
Re:The Identity Commons (Score:2)
Incidentally, one of the things you could use such a metric for is to avoid the need for a global namespace - if you just met someone at a club called Snorky, y
Well, if you want to know about trolls, (Score:2)
use reputation propagation (Score:2, Informative)
- Let each user decide who some of his friends/foes are, just like in Slashdot. Rate them accordingly, say on a scale of 0-1.
- that will filter posts by the people you've rated.
- as for the users you haven't rated:
- if there is a "path of trust" between you and that user, i.e. if there is a friend/foe of yours who has rated a friend/foe who has rated (...*x) this user, calculate a rate. You can try to multiply the rates, or use the average, whatever works best for you.
- if there isn't, or if the use
Problems with moderation/filtering (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a fundamental problem with this though, which is particularly acute for a site such as yours that exists for the sake of
A very specific task - a very specific solution (Score:2)
It would also help if you could ban IPs of the trolls. I don't suggest requiring registration with e-mail confirmation, because if your site
Sounds like you want TrustFlow (Score:2)
1) A global system of trust metrication, rather than one per website - so I can certify you as a non-troll once and for all, rather than once on each website.
2) A system which is not in the total command of a single website - in other words, one in which different websites can have a different "root of trust".
I'm assuming you want:
3) attack resistance as Raph Levien defines it
since the experience of sites like Kuro5hin especially demonstrate that non-attack-r
Come on the Wiki on Trust Metrics Evaluation (Score:1)
The goal of this project is to review, understand, code and compare on same data all the trust metrics proposed so far.
I'm a PhD student and this is my phd research proposal (Trust-aware Decentralized Recommender Systems [sra.itc.it]) and it is very related to all this concerns (trust, reputation, decentralization, blogs, recommender system,
Personally I think the more promising path to follow is FOAF (Friend Of A Friend) format [xmlns.com] (see the project blog [rdfweb.org]). There
very last post (Score:1)