Since I am new to ’social networking’, what is the value proposition that differentiates Sphinn from Stumble? I am thinking that Google uses pretty sterile metrics for valuing a URL, but that the social network ranking systems, using ‘wetware’ will actually do a better job of narrowing a selection down to a meaningful flood of sites. It is my hope that my preferences (via the scoring system) will shape the selection of sites I am offered.

I think that matching an up or down score with the IP sending it (and only allowing one of either per IP) should make a -1 plenty valid. Judging from long years in the Usenet trenches, I’d guess that the community is usually pretty good at exposing and shaming those who ‘cry wolf’ too often or two loudly.

Better still would be a system where the same IP could change its mind (perhaps in response to clarification / correction of a matter) but only the most recent vote would be counted. Still, allowing only one vote per IP per direction, if an IP has previously given a -1, then each subsequent vote from the same IP would only change the sign from a – to a + to a -, etc.

Complicated perhaps, but it would allow a “One IP / One Vote” system where the vote could change (up OR down) to reflect changes in the contents of the site or the contents of the reviewers brain (hopefully both are amenable to editing as needed).

You put it bluntly, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been said!