Who can write this cgi program or knows of someone
who will write such a program?
>From owner-virus@lucifer.com Fri May 8 07:45:04 1998
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> by maxwell.kumo.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA11639
> for virus-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 08:38:07 -0600
>X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com: majordom set sender to
owner-virus@lucifer.com using -f
>Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 09:37:55 -0500
>From: Bill Haloupek <haloupekb@UWSTOUT.EDU>
>Subject: Re: virus: Archives
>To: virus@lucifer.com
>Message-id: <355318C3.E30F27A4@uwstout.edu>
>Organization: University of Wisconsin-Stout
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>References: <3.0.5.32.19980506153035.02f4db20@lucifer.com>
> <35515B39.ADF6478D@qlink.queensu.ca>
>Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>
>I don't know what proportion of the list readers use html mail,
>but if everybody did, maybe you could get the server to put
>in tags in every post so that readers could rate each one. Just
>click one of the numbers 1-10, say, and that gets sent to the
>server. The server keeps score and sends out a monthly "best of"
>digest. You would have to fix it so each reader can only vote
>once for each post, and can't rate their own posts.
>
>Also, since I'm not all that democratic, I'd like to see people who
>tend to make more sense have more influence. If your posts get
>high ratings, then your ratings of other posts count more.
>
>A couple of years ago I heard about a news server that lets you
>rate news items and then "learns" your preferences by comparing
>your ratings with others'. If you tend to rate high the same items
>that John Smith does, then you will automatically be sent anything
>rated high by John Smith. I know that Pointcast and MSNBC let
>you rate stories, but I don't know if they learn your preferences.
>I think this is important because I don't have the same tastes as
>the average person. I want crap like the Jerry Springer show
>and Cosmopolitan etc filtered out for me.
>
>I would like to see academic journals take this approach as well.
>The main barrier to making research papers available online has
>been refereeing. If you read a refereed journal, you can be assured
>that the facts have been carefully checked, and you are not wasting
>your time reading some crackpot theory. The refereeing process
>has always been a good filter for academic literature. Unfortunately,
>it is expensive, so journals can't make their papers freely available
>online, even though the authors would love to have them freely
>available.
>
>Anyway, I think that the distinction between a research paper and
>a post on a discussion list will continue to fade in the coming
decades.
>Automatic rating/refereeing will probably be incorporated into all
kinds
>of online public communication. If you say something online that
>makes sense, it will get circulated, regardless of where you said it.
>Make sense?
>--
>
>Bill Haloupek
>haloupekb@uwstout.edu
>http://www.mscs.uwstout.edu/~billh/home.html
>
>
>
B. Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
AAA000
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com