[…] > By contrast, PageRank is a peer-review algorithm.
>mG: -Mumbo-jumbo, what do you mean?
-M: It finds expert opinion by following endorsement chains to the convergence of expertese.
> >> >-M: With SD2-S, its always collaboration. > >mG: -Where is your proof of that?
> -M: It has democratic inputs, with a minimum number of inputs for > decisions.
>mG: Minimum? Why and why is it a guarantee for collaboration for the best > solution?
-M: Its not a guarantee, but it still is collaborative.
>mG: Collaboration , yes, but what if all top-ranked are corrupt and know > each other, conserving their power?
-M: That creates what Brad deGraff calls a ‘circle jerk’. Such a circle still needs broad support to be highly ranked, or else is is just largely ignored by PageRank.
> >> >-M: BS, leaps occured because the “whos” were better selected. > > Again, you make a case for SD2-S. > >mG: Examples?
> -M: Top scientists were more peer-selected than church selected. > SD2-S has peer-selection, which is what you want, but you fuck-up by > using the lemming-algorithm instead of a peer-selection algorithm.
>mG: -Yes but many achievements have been made by non-appointed scientists > starting with almost nothing. Did you ever heard of the chief of the american patent office in the > end of 1800:s? This appointed idiot looked forward to a calm carrer since “everything > is always invented” more or less.
-M: Yes, I have heard of this.
>mG: To use your own words, SD2 selections can fuck up development.
-M: SD2-S is not an appointment based system, so your criticism doesn’t apply.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1