Site that allows patients to rate doctors and allows the public to review those ratings. Includes links to each states medical board to check discipline status.

"What's Digg? Digg is a technology news website that employs non-hierarchical editorial control. With digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allowing an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do."

I think we should think about allowing users to have the ability to add weight to posts here, in addition to assigning impact based on clicks. For instance, don't we want our important users to be able to tell us that a post represents an article that has a lot of weight.

Especially if we're thinking that people will have weights in addition to posts having weights.

another example of user-defined ranking. As we think about how to measure the impact of particular posts, I think we want to add some user-created aspect, and I think this is a better model than digg for rating items. I'm not sure how many icons Penntags will eventually be able to handle, but I like the simplicity of promoting and demoting sites here. reddit allows users to download bookmarklets so that they can register their like or dislike of a site while they're on it. I think, in the case of Penntags, we might like to have the option, in addition to copying an item, of voting it up or down for usefulness.

            This article traces the MPAA’s classification of R, X, and NC-17 films. This relates to Stanley Kubrick’s decisions to cut scenes from A Clockwork Orange in order to get an R rating. Sandler argues that Hollywood created the X rating for maximum profitability and freedom of expression only to later avoid it because of its association with pornography and therefore condemnation. The MPAA didn’t copyright the X rating, enabling distributors to self-impose X on unrespectable films. Initially, Hollywood used the sexual connotation of the rating to sell films. The successes didn’t last long. Through editing films to get an R rating, the major studios helped to confirm the end of X rated production…until Showgirls in 1995, which then proved that adult only ratings were to be avoided. The article lists statistics showing the drop off of X rated films and also tells us which studios refused to make them. He also explains the evolution of trailer ratings. The National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) refused X films while pornographers picked them up. We learn of the court cases that defined obscenity and of Hollywood’s fear of losing control of censorship. In 1990, NC-17 was copyrighted and served as a marker between X and R. Due to criticism on freedom of expression, the MPAA hoped to get films out that weren’t thought of as strictly porn. Of course, critics of the new rating said they were just renaming smut. Still, the major studios did not release NC-17 films, causing others to think of them as unmarketable. Also, NATO took a stand against NC-17 by including it with X. We learn that video retailers avoided them, also, which was important to revenue. Sandler then goes on to detail the marketing practices behind Showgirls and how MGM/UA debunked the myth that NC-17 was unmarketable. They were able to advertise in newspapers, television, video rentals, and theatres with special trailers.  Still, the film bombed at the box office, thus confirming that NC-17 was to be avoided. He summarizes studies done that confirm people’s negative perception of the NC-17 rating. He addresses other factors that may have led to Showgirl’s box-office failure. He also informs the reader about the not-so independent distributors conflicts in distributing NC-17 films because of their parent companies, namely Miramax and Fine Line.

A review of reddit, a site that lets you view the web as rated by other people.