From jay.kominek@colorado.edu Fri Jan 04 16:19:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 5 Jan 2002 00:19:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 73772 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2002 00:19:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jan 2002 00:19:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ucsub.colorado.edu) (128.138.129.12) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2002 00:19:41 -0000 Received: from ucsub.colorado.edu (kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu [128.138.129.12]) by ucsub.colorado.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id g050Jeb16826 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:19:40 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:19:40 -0700 (MST) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: cmavo index? In-Reply-To: <20020104232522.GG1650@aerosol> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE From: Jay Kominek X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=20706630 X-Yahoo-Profile: jfkominek On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, randl. nortmn. wrote: > I had been thinking this problem could be addressed, at least in part, > by having editorial review of some sort. The collaborative filtering > model comes to mind. Rather than a free-for-all, however, I'd > probably shoot for having certain registered reviewers who were > trusted to be skilled in the language, possibly with varying levels of > trust. If 20 trusted reviewers reviewed (on average) 10 usage > examples per week, and each example had to be reviewed by at least two > different reviewers to catch mistakes, we'd have 5200 doubly-reviewed > usage examples within a year. Now, whether or not there are 20 > capable and willing volunteers is another question. Who is going to write the examples to be reviewed, though? - Jay Kominek Plus =C3=A7a change, plus c'est la m=C3=AAme chose