In situations like TECSHARE's, you can (if you trust TECSHARE and disagree with Vod) post an additional positive rating responding to whatever Vod said. This will counteract Vod's negative rating.
Topic: bitcointalk trust system very stupid (Read 4425 times)
What exactly does it take to get green or black + numbers under your name?
I am confused on this point..
And I didn't know that negatives were that much more powerful. I thought the power was from how good the trust of the person that left the trust plus a modifier where risked BTC increased that power..
I am confused on this point..
And I didn't know that negatives were that much more powerful. I thought the power was from how good the trust of the person that left the trust plus a modifier where risked BTC increased that power..
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/minor-trust-score-algorithm-change-1066857
What exactly does it take to get green or black + numbers under your name?
I am confused on this point..
And I didn't know that negatives were that much more powerful. I thought the power was from how good the trust of the person that left the trust plus a modifier where risked BTC increased that power..
I am confused on this point..
And I didn't know that negatives were that much more powerful. I thought the power was from how good the trust of the person that left the trust plus a modifier where risked BTC increased that power..
Instead of Vod having to completely removecryptodevil from his trust couldn't Vod or another DT member just add positive trust to whoever cryptodevil negged to counteract his trust score that they disagree with?
I think so..
I think so..
As has been stated, I cannot remove anyone from DT. I am on DT level 2, courtesy of Dooglus, so anyone I add would be on DT3, which isn't considered by default.
Also, one negative is a lot more powerful than one positive.
This is what any negged person would say.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
Instead of Vod having to completely removecryptodevil from his trust couldn't Vod or another DT member just add positive trust to whoever cryptodevil negged to counteract his trust score that they disagree with?
I think so..
This is what any negged person would say.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
Vod can't remove cryptodevil from DT. However ANYONE can remove cryptodevil or suchmoon or whoever from their OWN trust list, that's how the this system should be used and I don't think that part is broken. Also you can add The Pharmacist just to spite him ;-).
Just keep in mind that DT or custom lists only change the red and green colors that you see. It doesn't make people more or less trustworthy, so basically what Salty said above - everyone should do their homework.
Maybe that's how it was meant to be used , but it sure is not how it currently is (or will be, i'm sure). Trust (feedback) is generally judged by default settings,
and you can't just say that people should include and exclude people however they want, because that just creates a mess and confusion (for 99% of members here atleast)
It is obvious that default trust settings are the way to go, but not as they are now, because every now and then DT is being abused, and there is no will to fix that.
I guess many perceive it as means to an end, because there's a lot of good work done as well.
I would add option to this trust system, enabling hero members and above, to be able to post at least neutral feedback to DT members as upper (trusted feedback).
Like i said, there is no easy fix for it, but this would atleast give us little guys a chance to be heard.
When simply posting something that will be seen as un trusted feedback to other members , people automatically assume exactly that - that it's untrusted and therefor invalid (fake/ungrounded)
I disagree. You're saying that using an existing function (custom trust lists) is too confusing and that DT is being abused but you're offering a new function ("trusted" feedback based on rank) that is much more prone to abuse. Instead of excluding one or two DT members whom you disagree with you would allow thousands of other users to elevate the "trustworthiness" of their feedback based entirely on how long ago they registered on the forum? Sorry, no.
I'm not saying the trust system can't be improved and perhaps there are some simple tweaks possible, e.g. changing the wording on the trust page or even replacing "trust" with a more appropriate word. If someone finds the system confusing then more education is needed, not dumbing it down to increase the false sense of safety.
This is what any negged person would say.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
Vod can't remove cryptodevil from DT. However ANYONE can remove cryptodevil or suchmoon or whoever from their OWN trust list, that's how the this system should be used and I don't think that part is broken. Also you can add The Pharmacist just to spite him ;-).
Just keep in mind that DT or custom lists only change the red and green colors that you see. It doesn't make people more or less trustworthy, so basically what Salty said above - everyone should do their homework.
Maybe that's how it was meant to be used , but it sure is not how it currently is (or will be, i'm sure). Trust (feedback) is generally judged by default settings,
and you can't just say that people should include and exclude people however they want, because that just creates a mess and confusion (for 99% of members here atleast)
It is obvious that default trust settings are the way to go, but not as they are now, because every now and then DT is being abused, and there is no will to fix that.
I guess many perceive it as means to an end, because there's a lot of good work done as well.
I would add option to this trust system, enabling hero members and above, to be able to post at least neutral feedback to DT members as upper (trusted feedback).
Like i said, there is no easy fix for it, but this would atleast give us little guys a chance to be heard.
When simply posting something that will be seen as un trusted feedback to other members , people automatically assume exactly that - that it's untrusted and therefor invalid (fake/ungrounded)
This is what any negged person would say.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
Vod can't remove cryptodevil from DT. However ANYONE can remove cryptodevil or suchmoon or whoever from their OWN trust list, that's how the this system should be used and I don't think that part is broken. Also you can add The Pharmacist just to spite him ;-).
Just keep in mind that DT or custom lists only change the red and green colors that you see. It doesn't make people more or less trustworthy, so basically what Salty said above - everyone should do their homework.
i think bitcointalk trust system very stupid..everyone can send randomly negative trust..trust system very ridiculous...
Trust ratings left by people on DT level 1 are the only one's that matter & they don't tend to leave negative ratings unless deserved.
Sure sometimes a few people will get burnt, possibly unfairly but it's a system that has mostly worked & stops scammers.
... not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members
There is a chance they may be placed into DT later on, when their feedback will matter.
I don't believe that's even close to reality. From what i observe, you can spot people trying to get on DT from miles away. They only deal with upper DT members,
and participate in deals with such members just in order to get on DT. That's just how i feel about this..
Sometimes i get the feeling that it's a closed circle of only so few people, i doubt that's how it should look like , if we want to have remotely fair system.
DT members will say it's fair as it is, because it favors them, but i don't think it is, at all.
Isn't that entirely their problem though? A foolproof system doesn't exist. Something where someone can easily pay without caution is outside of the realm of reality. Even given the absolute best possible forum trust system that we could ever possibly attain, blindly trusting anything is a bad move. All we can do is provide some tools that might help people form their own opinions. You can't call something bad because its purpose doesn't fit your expectations. You could call it bad if it is misleading people into false expectations, but I've seen more often than not that is a personal problem and not a system problem.
My only arguments against the trust system are as I said before, it would be more appropriately named a feedback system rather than trust system. I would say a basic "how to" would be useful as well, but that wouldn't really work, as people are free to interpret feedback any way they want. I described how I personally interpret it, but it might work perfectly for others in another way.
Yes, that is problem itself and it is better that we call it feedback system, also in many online websites such as merchant, freelancer,..if you want to have feedback you must pay a fee, if here they consider some similar mechanism, it may help prevent fake feedback or minimize it at least. My only arguments against the trust system are as I said before, it would be more appropriately named a feedback system rather than trust system. I would say a basic "how to" would be useful as well, but that wouldn't really work, as people are free to interpret feedback any way they want. I described how I personally interpret it, but it might work perfectly for others in another way.
This is what any negged person would say.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
But I have to say, it is a little broken. Let's say Cryptodevil. I don't have anything against him, but his reputation is controversial. If he negs someone and refused to remove it, people will go to Vod to remove him from DT. But Vod will reason that cryptodevil has Done more good than harm, and un-negging one person is not worth giving hundreds of scammers back their trust.
There are better systems than a cascading one.
... not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members
There is a chance they may be placed into DT later on, when their feedback will matter.
... not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members
There is a chance they may be placed into DT later on, when their feedback will matter.
I think that the so called "Crusaders" need to be dealt a hand of reality and not just give trust when they think it is just and needed. This just makes them look like morons and not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members this just affects them when they want to branch out into other faucets in the bitcointalk forum community.
So fucking deal me a hand of reality, because I'm one of the ones who thinks account sales are bullshit and my trust comments reflect this. You may not be referring to me specifically, but I'm in the same category. Do I care one whit whether you or anyone else thinks I look like a fool. Absolutely not. You and all the other account-selling and otherwise butthurt whiners can go gargle a tubesteak. This forum is full of shady people, and apparently a lot of people who don't realize their actions have consequences that they 1) May not foresee, or 2) Don't care about. Supporting ponzis and dealing in bitcointalk accounts are two of these things, and then there's also trafficking in stolen gift cards and all that.If you don't like that there are people who are willing to stand up against that stuff, FUCK YOU.
Agreed. I do my best to call out any potential scams and mark the accounts with neg trust. There are a lot of us who have been here for years and can spot the normal things that scammers do/try to do right off the bat, and I think it is our duty to warn others when we see it.
Keep up the good work and keep marking anything scammy as such.
I think that the so called "Crusaders" need to be dealt a hand of reality and not just give trust when they think it is just and needed. This just makes them look like morons and not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members this just affects them when they want to branch out into other faucets in the bitcointalk forum community.
So fucking deal me a hand of reality, because I'm one of the ones who thinks account sales are bullshit and my trust comments reflect this. You may not be referring to me specifically, but I'm in the same category. Do I care one whit whether you or anyone else thinks I look like a fool. Absolutely not. You and all the other account-selling and otherwise butthurt whiners can go gargle a tubesteak. This forum is full of shady people, and apparently a lot of people who don't realize their actions have consequences that they 1) May not foresee, or 2) Don't care about. Supporting ponzis and dealing in bitcointalk accounts are two of these things, and then there's also trafficking in stolen gift cards and all that.If you don't like that there are people who are willing to stand up against that stuff, FUCK YOU.
Its not perfect, but if you use it properly, it serves its purpose really well. My suggestions are to first, completely ignore the numerical score of trustworthiness. Green or Red trust means very little. Before you trade with someone, read their trusted and untrusted feedback. Ignore anything from members you don't personally trust. If there is a negative, read the description of why they got that negative. If there isn't a link attached with an explanation, take the person's words with a grain of salt. If there is a link attached, read the report and interpret it how you like. Check the date of feedback, just because someone was trustworthy in 2014 doesn't mean they haven't sold their account. If you are suspicious that someone has sold their account, ask for a signed message from a previously public btc address. If you aren't 100% completely satisfied that someone is trustworthy in your opinion, use escrow. If its not worth the other party's time to jump through a couple of hoops, then its not worth your time to potentially get scammed.
I've said it quite a few times before, if anything about the trust system is stupid, its that its called a "trust" system rather than a feedback system. Its meant to be a handy tool to help people research into who they are trading with, not whether or not they are trustworthy.
The problem is that some people expect a system that they can easily pay without cautions and do not worry about the payment. But they must ensure that they are not putting a high money in risk and pay in small payments. They use escrow and know that even in real life you cannot ensure someone is trustworthy completely. I've said it quite a few times before, if anything about the trust system is stupid, its that its called a "trust" system rather than a feedback system. Its meant to be a handy tool to help people research into who they are trading with, not whether or not they are trustworthy.
Isn't that entirely their problem though? A foolproof system doesn't exist. Something where someone can easily pay without caution is outside of the realm of reality. Even given the absolute best possible forum trust system that we could ever possibly attain, blindly trusting anything is a bad move. All we can do is provide some tools that might help people form their own opinions. You can't call something bad because its purpose doesn't fit your expectations. You could call it bad if it is misleading people into false expectations, but I've seen more often than not that is a personal problem and not a system problem.
My only arguments against the trust system are as I said before, it would be more appropriately named a feedback system rather than trust system. I would say a basic "how to" would be useful as well, but that wouldn't really work, as people are free to interpret feedback any way they want. I described how I personally interpret it, but it might work perfectly for others in another way.
Its not perfect, but if you use it properly, it serves its purpose really well. My suggestions are to first, completely ignore the numerical score of trustworthiness. Green or Red trust means very little. Before you trade with someone, read their trusted and untrusted feedback. Ignore anything from members you don't personally trust. If there is a negative, read the description of why they got that negative. If there isn't a link attached with an explanation, take the person's words with a grain of salt. If there is a link attached, read the report and interpret it how you like. Check the date of feedback, just because someone was trustworthy in 2014 doesn't mean they haven't sold their account. If you are suspicious that someone has sold their account, ask for a signed message from a previously public btc address. If you aren't 100% completely satisfied that someone is trustworthy in your opinion, use escrow. If its not worth the other party's time to jump through a couple of hoops, then its not worth your time to potentially get scammed.
I've said it quite a few times before, if anything about the trust system is stupid, its that its called a "trust" system rather than a feedback system. Its meant to be a handy tool to help people research into who they are trading with, not whether or not they are trustworthy.
The problem is that some people expect a system that they can easily pay without cautions and do not worry about the payment. But they must ensure that they are not putting a high money in risk and pay in small payments. They use escrow and know that even in real life you cannot ensure someone is trustworthy completely. I've said it quite a few times before, if anything about the trust system is stupid, its that its called a "trust" system rather than a feedback system. Its meant to be a handy tool to help people research into who they are trading with, not whether or not they are trustworthy.
I think that the so called "Crusaders" need to be dealt a hand of reality and not just give trust when they think it is just and needed. This just makes them look like morons and not contributing to the community one bit since they are not DT members this just affects them when they want to branch out into other faucets in the bitcointalk forum community.
The trust system is good, really. It keeps folks in line, those who have negative trust find it difficult to scam people and those who don't, are careful to avoid it.
Jump to: