On 11 October 2011 21:51, Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote: I agree on the one hand that anything is potentially gameable but: a) Wikipedia is notoriously gameable and yet, fingers crossed, we have not had a mass Anon. attack. One day we might; it could be an image filter that triggers it, or it could be trying to delete non-notable programming languages (yep - that triggered much discussion, and the IRC rooms we monitor were awash with suggestions to attack WP for it..). b) The Time "hack" was rudimentary at every step - no matter how the media (or this blog) portray it. The root cause of the hack was a technical ineptness at a several levels in the Time poll which allowed it to be maninpulated on a number of levels. On the face of it any such system might be gameable; but no specific implementation details have been laid out (beyond the basic framework). So the concern "it might be hacked to force a certain result" is one of the most easily addressed :) More problematic with your blithe dismissal is that the proposed implementation is inherently not all that gameable. This is because, as described, working out the filter for any individual is a P=NP (travelling salesman) problem. This is the more critical problem; assessing similar filter requirements for individual person->image by comparing your preferences with others is a non-trivial process that would have to occur on a per-image basis. That's not to say that it isn't a good idea - I quite like it (because it addresses the extant issues on both sides). There could be a way to rework the suggestion to one more capable of quickly deciding whether you wish to see an image or not (which, of course is the situation we are all striving for). Tom