in an embodiment of the present invention , there is provided a communication system which can be manifested as a social networking service . the present invention has a hierarchy of user supplied news , blogs , photos and other information items . these items may be rated by users , and summarized for display , may allow users to filter the items they view . the items a user submits to the present invention may be selectively public , completely private , or restricted to a group of designated users . fig1 illustrates an embodiment of the present invention . traditionally information like emails , web pages , wiki pages , photo galleries , and news items are delivered in a flat manner , possibly with ‘ subject tags ’ such as ‘ personal ’, ‘ business ’, ‘ sport ’ and so on , leaving the user to file and sort the information themselves . the present invention encourages its users to post information items in a subject hierarchy of ‘ topics ’, and to add new ‘ topics ’ as required by using a combination of reputation , user ratings and either emphasizing or minimizing the visibility of postings . fig1 illustrates a representation of this hierarchy . users adding an inappropriate topic would have the topic either rated poorly , moved , or removed completely , by other users this allows users who are interested only in specific subjects to track those particular topics , and filter out information they don ‘ t want to see , and aids in summarising the data with filtered views described below . a number of web sites allow users to ‘ rate ’ user postings , allowing other users to filter out boring posts , spam , or simply to concentrate on only the best postings . the present invention extends this to allow users to use ratings to organize their own private information , and to rate the usefulness of other users information . fig1 also illustrates a representation of this . ratings for strictly private information are simply assigned by the user . other ratings are provided by the aggregation of feedback from other users . a ‘ reputation ’ system is used to give ratings from some users more credence than others — reputation depends on factors such as the length of time they have been registered with the system , how well their own postings have been received , whether they are a paying customer and other predetermined criteria . using the ratings of items , users may filter their views of sub trees of the item hierarchy . in addition to the ratings , this filtering may combine elements such as the timeliness of the information , and the specificity of the information in the hierarchy , allowing users to generate ‘ views ’ such as ‘ the best of . . . ’, or ‘ today &# 39 ; s summary ’. filtering is done by the user at two levels . fig2 to 5 illustrate some examples of filtering . firstly , it is implicit by what the user chooses as ‘ favorites ’— only information from ‘ favorites ’ is shown by default , although the user may browse further a field . when viewing a sub tree of data from a particular ‘ favorite ’, the user may choose to change the default view to concentrate on timeliness ( e . g . showing recent information by preference ), rating ( e . g . show the highest rated information over all time ), or search by other criteria altogether ( e . g . concentrate on a particular author , or particular key words ). in addition , users may choose to specifically ‘ watch ’ certain subject trees , or to ‘ hide ’ other subject trees , thus building a personal profile of interests and dislikes . this information can be used to further filter the information they see , as well as providing an opportunity for personalized service provision such as targeted advertising or customized use of the present invention . users may choose to display items differentially based on rating , timeliness and so on . for example , older text items might only show a heading , or be greyed out , while newer items are displayed in full . users may choose how much visibility the items they submit to the system have . the visibility is preferably chosen when the item is submitted , and is usually implicit in the choice of the information sub tree the item is placed in — so , for example , an entry in a personal diary will remain personal , while a posting in a public forum will be public . while the visibility may be changed for anything at any time , operationally it is more likely that the changes will allow personal information to become public . some information may be entirely personal ( such as a diary entry ), shared within a group ( such as a word document , or photographs from a party ), or completely public ( such as a web log ). likewise the ability to edit information may be restricted by the original item provider . groups of users may be explicitly defined , or based on other criteria ( such as explicit subscription to a particular group ). communications security may be provided by ssl to prevent eavesdropping . using the filtered views above , the data may be displayed to the user with visual cues to indicate the importance or otherwise of the information nodes . nodes which the filtering algorithms wish to emphasize may be displayed in full , or in larger type or stronger colors , while other nodes may be summarized , use a smaller font or be greyed out . reference can be made to fig2 to 5 for an example of this . the system may email a user when an element of the subject tree changes , or may provide a regular summary of changes such as a ‘ daily wrap up ’. fig6 illustrates an example of this . some nodes may provide a gateway for commercial offerings — the portion of a subject tree corresponding to a geographical location might provide hosting for local businesses , while the portion of a subject tree corresponding to motor vehicles would be appropriate for motor vehicle vendors . for example , consider a subject sub tree : in the example above , a ballarat based business could register themselves at the level of ‘ ballarat ’, giving them easy visibility to people interested in ballarat , which is a feature not considered possible on the wider web . different parts of the subject tree may be displayed in very different ways , although the core information model is identical . users may personalize their nodes with particular graphics and style sheets , to create a personal ‘ theme ’ or ‘ skin ’ that changes the way their data is displayed ( color , layout , images and so on ) without actually changing the raw text on their site . an example of personalized styles is on the internet at myspace ™. lower parts of the tree may inherit the themes and styles of their parents , which may then be modified in part and whole . for example a user may add their photo to a generic ‘ personal blog theme ’. users ‘ watching ’ a particular subtree may be able to vote either publicly or anonymously on particular issues ranging from abstract proposals to the security visibility of the subtree . in addition to the primary taxonomic subject tree , posts may be tagged with meta - data for searching . such subject tags may in turn be hierarchical ( e . g . “ pets / dogs / poodles ” for a personal blog entry ). for example : journey with my dog yesterday i drove to sydney with my poodle . he had a great time hanging out of the window all the way . here are some pictures . could be tagged with : some topics and postings may appear in multiple parts of the subject tree , if their topic is capable of being catagorised in multiple areas . for example , a cross border town like “ albury - wodonga ” might be catagorised under both “ state of victoria ” and “ state of new south wales ”, thus allowing it to appear to users browsing or searching in either category . as an implementation detail , this may also be provided by the ‘ alias ’ function in an ldap or x . 500 directory . off line clients and subsidiary servers may share data between them . different servers may be responsible for different topic trees , while personal laptops may maintain an occasionally synchronized copy of a user &# 39 ; s favorites . this may be implemented in a manner known for ldap and x500 servers . for example , with reference to fig7 , a single tree of topics ‘ a ’ to ‘ i ’ may be divided among four servers as follows , where a primary routing server is responsible for node ‘ a ’, and for forwarding requests to other sub trees on to other servers . likewise the secondary routing server receives requests from the primary routing server , and responds to them ( if they are for node ‘ d ’), or passes them on in turn , if they are for the ‘ e ’→‘ i ’ data server . this allows for servers to be distributed according to load and network requirements ( e . g . to put servers for particular topics geographically close to their main user base to reduce network lag ). text nodes may be displayed in a ‘ threaded ’ manner , as is known in the web art . this provides the user with a guide for following the structure of the conversation , by showing which post is responding to which other post . the present invention may be implemented in a variety of ways and on a wide variety of computational platforms . some specific examples , without limitation , are : as a web site backed by an ldap or x500 style directory system . as a web site backed by a searchable file system ( using technology such as google search ™ or apple spotlight ™). an rss feed backed by any of the above back ends . a peer to peer architecture of distributed topic nodes that send queries to each other to provide the appearance of a coherent tree . another example is illustrated in fig8 , which shows a ‘ three tier ’ architectural implementation of the present invention . other architectures are possible , such as the distributed peer to peer mechanism of systems such as bit - torrent . the listed technologies for each tier are for example purposes only , and are not intended to be exhaustive — there are a wide variety of implementation possibilities all of which provide the end user with the same service . turning to fig1 again , it shows a set of nine items formally arranged in a topic tree , and given a rating from 10 to 50 . ( usually each topic would have more than one item associated with it , but for simplicity these are not considered ). consider a user viewing topic ( e ). in this case , items ( a )→( d ) will not be seen , as they are outside the sub tree defined by ( e ). if the users choose to view by rating only , the user will see ( g ) first , with rating ‘ 50 ’, followed by ( h ) with rating ‘ 30 ’, followed by ( e ), ( f ) and ( r ) in arbitrary order . if the user chooses to view by date only , and we assume the entries have been entered sequentially ( a ), ( b ), ( c ),( i ), the user will see the nodes ( e ) to ( i ) in reverse alphabetical order . the user may also use a custom predefined or user defined view that combines rating , recency , and depth of tree , to provide a summary view . such an view might start with the rating , add a modifier for recency , and decrease the rating the further away from the watched node the item is . in a further example , assume the tree presented previously has the following text postings for nodes ( e )→( i ) e : hobbies → animals → pets : does anyone know a good vet in melbourne ? ( rating 10 ) i &# 39 ; ve just moved into melbourne with a bunch of animals — does anyone know a good vet ? i &# 39 ; ve just found out that bark - a - lot dog food have recalled their ‘ beef chunks ’ dog food — something about too much potassium ? anyway here &# 39 ; s a link to their web site — http :// bark - a - lot . com hi everyone — i &# 39 ; ve got a 4 year old poodle for sale . here &# 39 ; s a list of her competition results from poodlecon 2006 : pomeranians are the most fantastic dogs ever ! here &# 39 ; s a sixty line poem i &# 39 ; ve written in their honour ! if a user was watching node ( g ), and the text was displayed in summarised rating mode , the display algorithm would : discard nodes ( e ) and ( f ) completely — they are above the watched node . i &# 39 ; ve just found out that bark - a - lot dog food have recalled their ‘ beef chunks ’ dog food — something about too much potassium ? anyway here &# 39 ; s a link to their web site — http :// bark - a - lot . com . hi everyone — i &# 39 ; ve got a 4 year old poodle for sale . here &# 39 ; s a list of her competition results from poodlecon 2006 : in order to display a set of nodes , the present invention calculates a ‘ display rating ’ ( not to be confused with ‘ user ratings ’, which are a numeric aggregation of user feedback ). this ‘ display rating ’ is then used by display technology such as css ( style sheets ) to determine how much prominence to give to a node , and how much of a nodes information to display . thus highly rated text might be displayed in full , in part , or not at all depending on the rating , while an image might be shown as a thumbnail if it was rated low , or as a larger image if it rated well . a variety of display options are given to the user using the above information . an example of the options are : “ classics ”— entries are displayed in rating order , with lower rated items elided “ recent ”— recent entries are displayed in date order , with their prominence set by their user rating “ threaded ”— entries are displayed as discussion threads , based on their position in the node tree , with their prominence set by the user rating . other display options are given based on combinations of the above . while this invention has been described in connection with specific embodiments thereof , it will be understood that it is capable of further modification ( s ). this application is intended to cover any variations uses or adaptations of the invention following in general , the principles of the invention and including such departures from the present disclosure as come within known or customary practice within the art to which the invention pertains and as may be applied to the essential features hereinbefore set forth . as the present invention may be embodied in several forms without departing from the spirit of the essential characteristics of the invention , it should be understood that the above described embodiments are not to limit the present invention unless otherwise specified , but rather should be construed broadly within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims . various modifications and equivalent arrangements are intended to be included within the spirit and scope of the invention and appended claims . therefore , the specific embodiments are to be understood to be illustrative of the many ways in which the principles of the present invention may be practiced . in the following claims , means - plus - function clauses are intended to cover structures as performing the defined function and not only structural equivalents , but also equivalent structures . for example , although a nail and a screw may not be structural equivalents in that a nail employs a cylindrical surface to secure wooden parts together , whereas a screw employs a helical surface to secure wooden parts together , in the environment of fastening wooden parts , a nail and a screw are equivalent structures . “ comprises / comprising ” when used in this specification is taken to specify the presence of stated features , integers , steps or components but does not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features , integers , steps , components or groups thereof .” thus , unless the context clearly requires otherwise , throughout the description and the claims , the words ‘ comprise ’, ‘ comprising ’, and the like are to be construed in an inclusive sense as opposed to an exclusive or exhaustive sense ; that is to say , in the sense of “ including , but not limited to ”.