Topic: DT members - ethical to sell DT services? (Read 1368 times)

And who said do nothing? I am advocating a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating. My entire point is shotgunning negatives IS NOT helping the forum, no matter how much you and others insist it does. I am sure it is just a total coincidence that everyone advocating the shotgun method depends on their reputation as a forum cop to have any reputation at all.

This is because on bitcointalk, the assumption is that a negative rating *is* a sign that someone is a scammer. This unfortunately is not the case, as negatives are routinely given out for criticizing certain people, for engaging in unpopular businesses that don’t hurt anyone and other non-trust related reasons.

In January, someone sent 600 ratings in under a day for no reason other than they wanted to have the most number of ratings sent. It should go without saying that this person clearly didn’t do their research prior to leaving those ratings.

Since you ask the question, you know very well that it is not obvious for newcomers.

I myself didn't care for trust for a long time when I joined, and it took me quite some time to find this information.

Maybe having a reminder of that on the trust page would be beneficial.

I would rather more neutral-trusted individuals than ones with green trust. I would assume that users new to the forum would be more inclined to trust those that have 40: -0 / +4 than 0: 0 / +0.

Raising the standard of trust is something I would prefer, especially since this arbitrary number metric can allow ignorant users to fall prey to someone with even 10 trust (via a 10-month feedback).

Is it entirely obvious that a trust of n * 10 is (at least) n different pieces of positive feedback, which have aged for 10 months?

That's not impossible at all--though I'm a buyer on eBay as well, I have a 100% positive rating as a seller over the course of over 15 years.  If you're talking about eBay members who only sell, I'd probably say you're closer to being correct but it's still possible to have 100% positive.  I've seen it a lot.

It's better than doing nothing to stop them, and aside from helping the forum, tagging them allows me to know who I should or shouldn't trust--and that's true for everyone who leaves feedback. 

On eBay, it's virtually impossible for a seller to receive only positive feedback. As a buyer, my experience thought me that sellers with 99.5% positive are better than sellers with "only" 98% positive.
On Bitcointalk, negative ratings are much stronger than positive ratings.
On eBay, 90 positive and 10 negative ratings puts you at 90%. On Bitcointalk, it puts you around -1000.

It used to happen in the mining section all the time, there were reviewers (probably still are) that were paid with crypto or hardware to review new miners.  Some reviewers were paid some were not, iirc one high profile user was paid 3000 BTC to be a full on paid shill for a miner manufacture.  I think it was open from the start he was paid, but it wouldn't have mattered as it was clear as glass where his loyalty was.

Everyone should always assume every review is paid for until you have established a personal comfort level with the reviewer (ie do they meet your personal criteria of providing unbiased reviews).

Again, the pattern is complete dismissal of the negative impacts that false or frivolous ratings have on users. This is not just about one or two users but a larger pattern of this behavior which has a much bigger detrimental impact on the overall community. Users who are falsely rated with honest intentions will often just leave rather than deal with rebuilding their reputations while frauds are back in seconds with a purchased account. Negative ratings are handed out so flippantly to the point where they have become almost meaningless in spite of your pretense that this is not the case.

This forum IS infested with scammers. The problem isn't new, and shotgunning negatives at them isn't going to stop it, nor has it been. At best it will momentarily delay them. The question then is at what cost? I submit the cost is at the expense of the legitimate user base which has to deal with the constant fear of extortion via the trust system for saying the wrong thing. Some times they even get extorted using their hard earned reputations because they pointed out the wrong scam. Have you ever considered the security flaw of such a system in that context? What is preventing systematic extortion of reputable users here by using their reputations against them to keep them quiet about big scam XYZ if false negative ratings have no penalty or cost?

People can judge for themselves. The problem is the system is largely intended to help new users, and new users don't know any different. Again you point out another flaw in this whole argument. At the end of the day scammers can still hijack trusted accounts, making your shotgunning of negatives totally ineffectual against them in this context. Unfortunately for many people leaving negative ratings has become a game of quantity over quality, and for increasingly frivolous reasons which are indistinguishable from abuse, all done towards the end of increasing their own reputation as a "forum cop."

That's your opinion, and I think it's wrong.  You don't know that members are seeing all these negatives and becoming immune to them any more than I do.  The fact is that this forum is absolutely infested with scammers and dishonest people of all kinds, and the unwitting member needs to be warned about them.  In other words, I think it's much better that one of these scammers or account sellers or what have you has a red tag rather than not having one. 

People can judge for themselves whether they want to trade with that person based on what the negative was given for--and if they disregard someone's trust, that's on them.  Some people have to learn the hard way, and that's just the way it is.  I know I did when I got scammed by a green-trusted member back in 2016. 

As others have stated this is a matter of perspective, not a universally true statement. There is no way to force resolution around here, and no cost for making false negative ratings generally. If some one has the opinion they don't like what you are doing, that's it. It will remain a permanent impediment to the user with varying levels of detriment. People tend not to do due diligence, and pretending like it is just a matter of them looking more carefully is quite dismissive of the negative results that it would have on ones ability to trade.

Additionally false negatives do more to lure people in to fraud than anything. By propagating false negatives the user base learns they don't always mean something and then genuine negative ratings blend in with the signal noise of frivolous ratings. False positives rely on the reputation of the one giving it. People around here with good reputations are aware that people are trying to game the system and they have direct incentives to not allow that, because their own reputation would suffer.

But you have to reach the 480 activity first before reaching the hero rank but that's not an issue you'll probably reach that in a matter of time.

That's almost like selling the account or even renting it imho.

I think the merit system is pretty decent against past trust ratings used to merit posts or actions, also I repeat myself I see way more users tagging obvious scams than before which is also nice.

I was so sure it was 500!!!!
I guess I might become Hero 2 weeks earlier than expected.

Congratz anyway for your new rank o_e_l_e_o

Hero only needs 480 activity and 500 merit.

This is a matter of perspective.

The fact that in your opinion it is true, doesn't make it an universal reality.

If someone was to falsely red tag someone who was launching his service, you have no idea how much money is at stake, and how much he might lose because of this rating.

It can be very damageable in both ways.

Edit: also how are you Hero with an activity of 490?

Because a false positive rating can do a lot more damage than a false negative rating. A false negative may stop a user from doing some trading, or at least force other parties to do a bit more due diligence, until it is resolved. A false positive rating could potentially contribute to a scam by helping to lure in people who don't know any better.

Given the ratio of honest members to would be scammers, I'm not surprised the positive to negative feedback ratio is what it is.

Why is it people are so afraid of leaving a positive for the wrong person, but not afraid of spamming negative ratings? I have left a mere handful of negative ratings, because I almost exclusively rate people whom I have had a direct interaction with. I am of the opinion people should not be so desperate to find crimes and instead address the actual fraud around here. Of course tracking down and proving real fraud is a lot harder than playing Columbo with random hapless noobs...

If the bounty is 0.5BTC it is shady from the start. If you are earning $2000 testing a product you could get inclined focusing on the good stuff and intentionally or not, forget to mention the bad. And that what you forget to mention could end up being a problem for you and any future users of the service.

I'd say everything that is close to a decent amount regarding time spent.

After this everyone has to  decide for himself how much his time is worth.
I value my time at around $30..$100/hour depending on the technicality/difficulty of the task.

Of course to follow up on the 0.5 BTC you are mentioning, this kind of amount would raise a huge red flag (unless it involves days long of testing...).

Offering a free copy is no different then offering a bounty as long as the free copy does have a market value, which it has since the editor is managing to sell some.

If the item has a value FOR the tester is another story.

Ah, just my skeptical nature getting the getting the better of me, I guess.  I see your point, but I'm not 100% sure "there is no difference."  In one case, a free sample of a product is offered, and in the other a bounty is offered for testing a service.  Again, I see your argument and tend to agree in the big picture they are similar, and in most cased there wouldn't be anything nefarious in the offer. 

However, to play devil's advocate I'll ask; what's an appropriate bounty?  If one were to offer a bounty of 0.5BTC for testing a service, how unbiased will the reviewer be?  At what point does it start to look like something nefarious?