Topic: DefaultTrust changes - page 71. (Read 85467 times)

It increases every month by +1.

Since you have set your trust depth 1 then you will see only DT1 trust rating. Whoever on your trust list they are DT1 for you. Since wwzsocki had not received any feedback's from DT members so you will see only your feedback's and whom on trust list. So trust rating will calculate based on your trust list. Most likely every 14 days will increase 1 point from each feedback's within your trust network.

Trying to solve the trust system I wanted to check it on a specific example. I added one user's trust to my list and tried to check his trust values. I agree with the third cycle but I still have problems with the first one but I am convinced that I will find the answer here.

The user on which I tested this system is wwzsocki, with whom I can see the numbers 12 0 5

The number of positive trust reports agrees - when I enter his profile I see five positive Trusted feedback so this is ok ...

I do not understand why the score of the user's trust - I see the number 12 on his profile
According to me:

Since I gave him a trust (this month) so he has a trust from me 1

One mate from my trust list also gave him a trust this month so his trust is growing to two.

Additionally, my trust deep is set to 1 (and he is in my trust list) so I "see" his as well his personal trust.

Apart from me and a user from my list (which I have already mentioned), he has two users (whom he gave the trust and they gave him back to him) - one ("2018-11-11" so 5 months ago) and the other ("2018-10 -21 "so 6 months ago), so for these two should get an extra 11 points, which together with the two points I mentioned earlier gives 13.

So why do I see 12

Update for the last week with merit data dumps from theymos and LoyceV.
It seems that over the last three weeks, median of intra-day merits of the after period compared to before period have fluctuated stably around + 4%

Colors:
- Red: Decrease
- Green: Increase.

Two week later:
Median: + 37.1
Mean: + 24.2

Three weeks later:
Median: + 15.9
Mean: + 15.5

Four weeks later:
Median: + 15.6
Mean: + 11.1

Five weeks later:
Median: + 6.2
Mean: + 6.4

Six weeks later:
Median: + 4.2
Mean: + 3.5

Seven weeks later:
Median: + 4.2
Mean: + 2.7

---

Eight weeks later:
Median: + 4.7
Mean: + 1.9

---

More details are available there

The core DT1 is updated monthly, and over the last two iterations has been done on the fith:

20190305: DT update log
20190205: Re: DefaultTrust changes

Is there any specific date on which this DT refreshment cycle is taking place every month?

I am really sorry to break "OG-TECSHARE against everyone again" conversation, I'll just drop this here



My default trust settings showed this -62: -6 / +2

And no, I am not pointing at hilariousandco 

The bold part is how we all advance as a community.  Top job to you both.

What a foolish statement.  I actually went out of my way to reduce my negative trust rating of minerjones as I think he was very inexperienced when he started offering services here and made honest mistakes (although the TMAN one is pretty egregious).  I don't believe he is untrustworthy for trading although the Canary situation is a concern for his reshipping service that people should at least be aware of.  He has without a doubt helped many users on this forum hide their address from sellers, and that is a helpful thing for this community.  That is why I long ago reduced his trust rating to neutral, eliminated some of the more petty claims, and didn't even list the offenses on his feedback, but merely linked to this image: https://imgur.com/EqGmnIu  That's the most weenie, let me try and minimize your behavior feedback I've ever left.  I have no problem with MJ enjoying the benefits that come with being the most trusted user here.  Otherwise, I would leave him a negative rating for his shady behavior and he would lose that position, the way that Lauda/TMAN/owlcatz are artificially keeping me from being in it.  I was merely giving possible reasons for minerjones' distrust of theymos as everyone seemed stumped.  I do question a trust network that is full of users willing to turn a blind eye to this behavior, but that's what we're all trying to address in this thread.

Do you have any evidence that I think minerjones is the dark lord himself, or is the 'I said so' claim good enough when it comes from your keyboard?  I think I've laid out that I not only have gone out of my way to protect minerjones' trust rating, but that I think he does more good than bad here (the bad is enough for me not to trust him, but the good is enough for me not to distrust him).

I delete quotes usually, unless they're fairly short, just so that we don't end up with page long quotes on every post. That's understandable though (not that it matters much now, since both posts are on the same page).

You assume that the only reason he's distrusted theymos is because he is the dark lord himself, set to destroy everything holy.
Since you cited no evidence in your post, much to my surprise, I decided to maybe put out the assumption that he's not the devil reincarnate and instead just disagrees with theymos on the trust system, and is using it properly to show that.

Feel free to push what you like though, but backing it up with more than 'I said so' might do you a few favours in making it believable.

You cut out my quote, I inserted it back in for you for context since someone deleted a post to bury it on the previous page.  Seems like we're saying the same thing, only I cited examples that you deleted.  Not the best way to try and carry on a discussion if that's your intent. 

Or he doesn't trust theymos' judgement when it comes to the trust system. Either or.

WoAh wHaT A ShOcKiNg rEvElAtIoN!!!!!

Maybe it's because theymos distrusts TMAN, who minerjones helped manipulate an auction in the past?  Maybe it's because theymos trusts me, who has publicly spoken out about minerjones' doxing of Canaryinthemine while all others sweep such activity under the rug?  Who knows?  We can only speculate at this time without a reason being given.  Personally, I would like to believe it was just a mistake or oversight, as this forum has done so much for minerjones, from giving him a platform to collect donations from forum users for his family members when they hit hard times, to enabling him to auction items where he undoubtedly receives a majority of his business, even looking the other way as he engages in questionable non-transparent ICO escrows that result in users losing huge sums of dollars while he collects his fee.  It seems flat out ungrateful to respond in such a fashion.  It must be a mistake.

You first...

Imagine bitcointalk in VR, that's exactly how I'd imagine things would turn out. Has to be some next gen VR though where smell comes through.

We’d be able to put scammers in the stocks & throw rotten fruit at them instead of red tagging them

I had not thought of it that way, but yes, it would be better if we all acted like Victorian ladies.

That kind of sounds like you expect us to behave like Victorian ladies.

I find it extremely unbecoming.