interesting thread on what’s the best implementation of moderation. my current thinking, is that everyone moderates is a good idea. i’m torn right now in how to weigh the moderation, or if filtering should be on by default, and if it is turned on, if it should filter by threads or what… of course, i have yet to read the w3-collaboration notes or made much of a dent in other collaboration reading. i really need to take some time off and just go through my “to read” folder. wayy to much stuff gathering there.
haven’t posted much recently because i’ve been busy, doing vignette training.
communities, content syndication, and commercial interests, good discussion, found it searching for some more info on scoop in light of kuro5hin’s recent travails. kmself made an interesting comment on /.
What pains me is that the Three Big Weblogs (TBW) have portions of the solution. Slashdot has filtering tools. K5 has a good moderation system. Advogato has a good membership vetting system. However, the pieces need to be put together. Having them on seperate systems doesn’t quite cut it.
instant runoff voting is a pretty cool idea.
As for third parties, it’s really another dynamic–the fact that voting your third-party favorite ends up helping the guy you hate the most. This can be fixed with instant runoff voting: You pick your first choice, second, third, etc. Count up all the first-choice votes. If no one gets over 50%, eliminate the candidate with the least, take all the people who voted for him as first-choice, and count their second-choice votes. Continue until one candidate has over 50%.
rocket arena 3, now with new “true-lightning” client-side option to stiffen your shaft.
lots of interesting links on scripting news today. one of those is to go.com’s recently open-sourced cms. pretty cool news.
an interesting thread on the microsoft mentality. makes me hope no one i know ends up working there (and losing grip of reality).
cancelled one of my credit cards today because i was so cheezed off by their crappy customer support.
stephen kings new internet experiment seems to be something along the lines of counterpane’s street performer protocol. the idea is that if paythrough surpasses 75% of the downloads, he’ll write another installment. personally, i think that while the idea can work, asking for checks or money orders is silly (paypal anyone?). also, it’d be fairer to readers to also set a solid dollar threshold – i mean, come on, if he ends up getting a million downloads, but only 50% pay, will the half million not be fair compensation for his work? would that be fair to the people who paid in good faith? it can be that even that the 50% who didn’t pay (or even 30%) just didn’t like the book…
with all that being said, however, i have to say that the idea brings a smile to my face. it’s a good first step. incremental improvements: create an automatic account for each person who buys a book. give them an option to participate within a community w/ there purchase. provide personalization (store the books for em, etc.) that’s only available with a purchase. i think that ultimately, that’s the best way to sell digital, provide value adds that make it better and simpler to buy than steal. i do share stephen kings opinion that most people do fundamentally want to support artists. it’s just being made too inconvenient right now.
He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. — George Orwell, 1984, 1948