This isn't actually a bad idea. Although I think Theymos was more in support of retaliatory feedbacks as a form of replying rather than being able to actually reply directly... And as the others have said, it would make the page look a bit messy.
It could be messy, but I wouldn't make it much different from Google reviews business responses. Maybe a accordion style dropdown w/ the response.
Don't you think it will give scammers the chance to misslead whoever is reading their trust feedbacks by spreading lies, if so, the one who left the feedback have to respond and so on.
If a user thinks the feedback he got was unfair, all he has to do is to complain about it on the reputation board and asks DT members to counter it. What I suggest is to make the countering feedback shows just bellow the countred one and not according to the chronological order.
No so more than the user leaving the trust having the ability to spread lies. The trust system was originally implemented for users to take the information into account + make their own judgement calls.
I mean, that is a valid idea though. Instead of "responses" it could just pull the feedback left on the other users trust page (but I feel like thought would be more confusing both visually and programmatically)
In order to solve the constant responding, we could just allow edits on trust feedbacks.
but isn't this like making everyone a DT member on their own trust page? if we have an accused scammer , he will be given the same privileges as the member who left him the feedback, this will render many tags useless, a newbie sees user A calling user B a scammer , user B goes no you are the scammer , user A's feedback becomes almost useless.
unless you are going to allow a complete debate on the trust page whereby both users can put forward their proofs , screenshots ,etc ,,,. but then we already have the "reference" for that, which works better since other members also have the ability of adding their own thoughts and facts regarding the feedback.
while i side the idea that everyone must have the chance to defend themselves , this suggestion is not the best, another approach wouth be hiding the feedback content while still shows as "red/negative" "green/positive" , forcing the user to somehow click the reference to confirm and judge for themselves before jumping to a conclusion as many of those feedback are somehow far from accurate.
Just to clarify, unless it wasn't otherwise obvious, only the reporting member and the user responding will have any capability to participate in the debate.
You wouldn't be able to "jump onto" a DT members feedback.
If feedback is simply "you are a scammer" without further justification, then the reporting user hasn't done their job IMO. If anything this would enhance the detail of left reports, since users would have to provide more details / context.
It's a good idea, already on my to-do list, but it requires other changes as well. If the person who made the rating can delete it as they can today, then they can also delete the response, which isn't good. My current tentative thinking on how it should work is:
- Raters can retract ratings, but not totally delete them.
- Raters can add a short addendum to their ratings, and this can be freely edited, but the original rating can't be edited. (The point is to prevent conversations via rating edits. A rating should be one particular issue, and the response should be a response to this issue. Not 100% sure that this is necessary, though.)
- Additional limits on how often you can leave ratings may be needed.
I like the idea of a short addendum + would aid in modifications to the feedback otherwise.
So I'm guessing the content would still be available on the trust page upon retraction, but would have some sort of state change to insinuate that the feedback has been retracted. Seems like a good idea to me.
What about the DT members who have screeds and screeds of nonsense retaliatory feedback. Are they going to be expected to respond to each and every one, pointing out that it is unfounded nonsense. And if they don't post a response to each one, does that make these feedbacks seem more legitimate? "Look, user X never denied the fact I called them a scammer, therefore it must be true."
I mean, this would act a lot like Google reviews. I don't think anyone would be expected per say to response to nonsense feedback, but they would be permitted to if need be.
I'm unsure of a difference between now and then, realistically nothing changes if a user decides not to respond back to a feedback rating.
As for feedbacks seeming "more legitimate"; I mean it's really up to community. But, bullshit reviews that are obviously BS reviews will still have that consensus. When I see a review for a company online, and the company hasn't responded to it, I don't immediately believe the report, I sort of take it with a grain of salt.
