Subject: Quality task force on web sites

From: "Barathy, RamaSubramaniam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:31:56 +0200

Hello Everybody,

Would it not be nice to have some sort of quality control task force that
assigns a quality level for the web sites through out the world. 

This would make the site developers to bring in the higher quality to the
net.
This could be used as an additional criteria in the search engines.
This could make higher quality sites to be a revenue generator.

With more and more web sites, we r getting lost in finding quality
information.

Regards 
Rams

---

From: "R. Muralidharan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:52:35 +0530

Hi
are we trying to address the issue of quality of engineering;
 or the quality of the web content read as accuracy, correctness,
authenticity etc of the web content?
muralidharan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barathy, RamaSubramaniam" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 3:01 PM
Subject: Quality task force on web sites

> With more and more web sites, we r getting lost in finding quality

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:28:35 -0400

> assigns a quality level for the web sites through out the world. 

We have enough problems just *finding* all the web sites in the world.
I believe I saw a statistic that NONE of the major search engines included
more than about 20% of the actual pages out there.  And you might want
to check out the sort of hardware the big engines have to use to actually
DO the indexing - this sort of thing usually doesn't happen for free, which
means that somebody will have to FUND this....

Also, notice that on *many* sites, all the *interesting* content is
active content - meaning that it's quite hard to index.  Two of the
pages I visit a *lot* are the IBM and SGI bug report databases, which
are only searchable via keyword.

> This would make the site developers to bring in the higher quality to the

Why would it motivate them?  There's several possibilities here:

1) They are technically unable to do better.  A quality control won't
help them.

2) They are happy with the page, and the page's users are happy. WHy do they
care what quality control says?

3) They're happy, and don't care about the users.  A QC rating won't
motivate them.

4) They're not happy with their work, but are too time-pressed to do
better.  A QC rating won't make more hours in the day.

> With more and more web sites, we r getting lost in finding quality

Yes, but quality control isn't the answer, unless you are advocating
shutting down web pages that don't meet your standards....

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Mahadevan Iyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 08:51:21 -0700 (PDT)

> With more and more web sites, we r getting lost in finding quality

What quality of a web site are you referring to?
Quality of service or Quality of Content?  The latter is subjective.

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:58:28 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

> assigns a quality level for the web sites through out the world. 

No, it would not be nice.  It would, in fact, be wrong.

We hardly need to turn the IETF into the International Court of Web
Quality.

You are, of course, free to start your own content rating service and try
to convince others that your notion of "quality" is in accord with theirs.

		--karl--

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 19:48:03 +0200

There are no worldwide standards for quality, so this is not a feasible
idea.

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 08:16:33 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, Maha

 >>Quality of service or Quality of Content?  The latter is subjective.
 
so is the former.

see 
G. M. Wilson and M. A. Sasse (forthcoming): Investigating the Impact
of Audio Degradations on Users: Subjective vs. Objective
Assessment Methods. To be presented as a full paper at OZCHI'2000,
Sydney, Dec. 2000. 

A. Watson & M. A. Sasse (forthcoming): The Good, the Bad, and the
Muffled: The Impact of Different Degradations on Internet
Speech. To be presented as a full paper at ACM Multimedia, Los
Angeles, Oct. 30- Nov. 3. 

G. Wilson & M. A. Sasse (forthcoming): Do Users Always Know What's
Good For Them? Utilising Physiological Responses to
Assess Media Quality. To be presented as a full paper at HCI 2000,
September 5th - 8th, Sunderland, UK. Proceedings published
by Springer. 

A. Bouch, M. A. Sasse & H. DeMeer (2000): Of Packets and People: A
User-Centred Approach to Quality of Service. Proceedings
of IWQoS 2000, Pittsburgh, PA, June 5-8, pp. 189-197. 

A. Bouch and M. A. Sasse (2000): The case for predictable media
quality in networked multimedia applications. Proceedings of the
ACM/SPIE Multimedia Computing and Networking (MMCN'00), 25-27th
January 2000, San Jose, USA. 

etc etc etc

 cheers

   jon

---

From: Mahadevan Iyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 19:52:19 -0700 (PDT)

>  >>Quality of service or Quality of Content?  The latter is subjective.

Yes, but not to the same degree as the latter.
Of course, subjectivity of qos depends on multiple factors, such as data 
type, and whether the end user is a human or a computer program. 
Quality of audio-visual images presented to a human may be subjective, but
not say, a rocket coordinate which is input to a control program.

(Not that anyone would want to control rockets using the internet :) )

Mahadevan.

---

From: Salvador Vidal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:21:50 +0200

Hi all,

At 19:52 06/09/00 -0700, you wrote:
>> In message
<[email-masked]>, Maha

On Tue x  x 18xx, Nietzsche wrote: 
>Understood objectivity not as contemplation disinterested ,that as 
>such it is absurdity, but as the faculty of having our for and our 
>against subject to our dominance and the power to separates them 
>and to assemble them: so that we know to use in profit of the 
>knowledge precisely the diversity of the perspectives and of the
>interpretations born of the affections...How much greater will be >the
number of eyes, of different eyes that we know to employ to >see a same
thing, so much more complete will be our concept of it, 
>so much more complete will be our objectivity.

It´s not IEFT work to develop filtering or rating services, but to develop
standars wich guaranty people and organizations to develop them and users
to choose and mix them freely.

XX Century was the time for information control monopolies wich drives that
messages like: God want us to Kill the (Jewist, Arabs, Americans,
Vietnams,...) succedd, but now century is ending and PEOPLE MANUPALATION
MUST NOT PROGRESS WITHOUT OPOSITION.

Related with IEFT task, I think that we must find a way to allow,
filtering, rating, diagonalization (reports about your messages),...,
services, and the mix of diferent services on e-mails messages.

As long as we can not imagine all the posibilities, I think that we must
let standars as open as posible, after a study of the security, compability
with actual systems and traffic overload aspects.

Best Regards,
Salva