Then again, the newly introduced Merit System could actually help filter out the tens of thousands of shill / shit posters.
Nope, it didn't...
Am locking thread.
Topic: I have a proposal to vary the trust system that is used here. (Read 994 times)
Nope, it didn't...
Am locking thread.
Then again, the newly introduced Merit System could actually help filter out the tens of thousands of shill / shit posters.
September 19, 2015, 10:41:32 AM
I totally agree that the colour's alone can get muddled in peoples minds; especially anyone with even a slight colour deficiency could see two near colours the same violet/purple comes to mind.
The x: -y / +z [n] looks like a good suggestion together with tilting the oblique the other way
eg x: -y \ +z [n] to show someone is on Default Trust perhaps? (the n would be zero in that case)
*edit* and in each case it is from each persons own perspective so no two users will necessarily have the same values as they may not necessarily trust the same users (including those on the DT, especially if they have removed the DT list)
The x: -y / +z [n] looks like a good suggestion together with tilting the oblique the other way
eg x: -y \ +z [n] to show someone is on Default Trust perhaps? (the n would be zero in that case)
*edit* and in each case it is from each persons own perspective so no two users will necessarily have the same values as they may not necessarily trust the same users (including those on the DT, especially if they have removed the DT list)
September 18, 2015, 11:45:00 PM
Oh and I just recalled read a while ago that placing someone on Ignore holds weight with the trust list as well, but where that explanation is I'm not sure.
there was nothing like that. just this fancy feature. not sure why it was disabled but theymos said it was expensive.It permitted to save your time by skipping without worries some long useless posts before you read them entirely.
In the thread you linked, seems that the intention of theymos was to reinstate it at a later time:
Why was this removed? Or are you going to make me find the relevant post in this 12 page thread...?
Liam
The feature took up too much of the servers resources so it was disabled: Liam
I have temporarily disabled this feature unless you are logged in. It is very expensive. I plan to make it less expensive soon, but this requires many changes.
I've had to totally disable this feature. I will fix it in a few days.
Back on topic.
I like your idea OP to add the DT level, but please do not rely (only) on the colours differences.
It isn't a matter of a limited palette, but mostly the fact that there may be many issues with them, like misconfigured displays or daltonic people. Furthermore, you still have to remember which colour means what.
September 18, 2015, 07:06:46 PM
Oh and I just recalled read a while ago that placing someone on Ignore holds weight with the trust list as well, but where that explanation is I'm not sure.
there was nothing like that. just this fancy feature. not sure why it was disabled but theymos said it was expensive.
September 18, 2015, 06:55:28 PM
Oh and I just recalled read a while ago that placing someone on Ignore holds weight with the trust list as well, but where that explanation is I'm not sure.
September 18, 2015, 06:55:06 PM
None of those is the thread I'm talking about; thanks for the help, though. This thread was created a while back and it was something along the lines of the community voting for DT members when they join. (My memory is a bit hazy though.)
not sure why you want to see that. but here it is
Replacing DefaultTrust
Perfect! That was the thread I was talking about. Thanks!
I was just interested in the variation of the trust system that theymos thought up and why it wasn't accepted.
September 18, 2015, 06:52:20 PM
None of those is the thread I'm talking about; thanks for the help, though. This thread was created a while back and it was something along the lines of the community voting for DT members when they join. (My memory is a bit hazy though.)
not sure why you want to see that. but here it is
Replacing DefaultTrust
September 18, 2015, 06:49:57 PM
This may be a tad bit off topic, but does anyone here know where the old thread of theymos voting to change the DT was? I want to go over that thread again but I have no idea where it is anymore.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/marketplace-trust-211858 Marketplace trust
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/minor-trust-score-algorithm-change-1066857 Minor trust score algorithm change
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/setting-up-your-own-trust-list-1184040 Setting up your own trust list
None of those is the thread I'm talking about; thanks for the help, though. This thread was created a while back and it was something along the lines of the community voting for DT members when they join. (My memory is a bit hazy though.)
September 18, 2015, 06:48:37 PM
This may be a tad bit off topic, but does anyone here know where the old thread of theymos voting to change the DT was? I want to go over that thread again but I have no idea where it is anymore.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/marketplace-trust-211858 Marketplace trust
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/minor-trust-score-algorithm-change-1066857 Minor trust score algorithm change
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/setting-up-your-own-trust-list-1184040 Setting up your own trust list
September 18, 2015, 06:38:54 PM
This may be a tad bit off topic, but does anyone here know where the old thread of theymos voting to change the DT was? I want to go over that thread again but I have no idea where it is anymore.
September 18, 2015, 08:39:23 AM
Recent revelations show us that the trust system can't be relied upon any way. One of the previously most trusted people here has been outed, who knows how many alts he has control of in DT.
Be careful who you deal with but that might not protect you any way.
Nice way of explaining what real DT is ,i wonder when people will stop believing in it.Be careful who you deal with but that might not protect you any way.
but there are some REAL honest members like ZAKIR and sebastian too.
Oh I agree, I've had pleasant experiences with both. But there are also some bad guys on DT, just because they're on it doesn't mean they're fully trustworthy. But like you said there are definitely some REAL trustworthy guys on DT.
September 18, 2015, 07:23:31 AM
Recent revelations show us that the trust system can't be relied upon any way. One of the previously most trusted people here has been outed, who knows how many alts he has control of in DT.
Be careful who you deal with but that might not protect you any way.
Nice way of explaining what real DT is ,i wonder when people will stop believing in it.Be careful who you deal with but that might not protect you any way.
but there are some REAL honest members like ZAKIR and sebastian too.
September 18, 2015, 07:07:53 AM
Recent revelations show us that the trust system can't be relied upon any way. One of the previously most trusted people here has been outed, who knows how many alts he has control of in DT.
Be careful who you deal with but that might not protect you any way.
Be careful who you deal with but that might not protect you any way.
September 18, 2015, 05:04:49 AM
Hi again,
I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like. Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there.
But i wonder why would they adapt your or mine trust system rather than continuing their own made up ?I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like. Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there.
unless it improves and advances the system at an alarming rate ?
I'm trying to build on the Trust system that's in place already, I'd like to know that if someone had 12: -0 / +3 [3] that they'd be more trustworthy than 4: -0 / +1 [2] by comparison even though the first one is at trust level three
also i like what you are doing out there ,but i dont think any trusted user would like a new one to compete him in general.
September 18, 2015, 05:01:26 AM
Hi again,
I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like. Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there.
But i wonder why would they adapt your or mine trust system rather than continuing their own made up ?I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like. Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there.
unless it improves and advances the system at an alarming rate ?
I'm trying to build on the Trust system that's in place already, I'd like to know that if someone had 12: -0 / +3 [3] that they'd be more trustworthy than 4: -0 / +1 [2] by comparison even though the first one is at trust level three
September 18, 2015, 04:33:31 AM
Hi again,
I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like. Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there.
But i wonder why would they adapt your or mine trust system rather than continuing their own made up ?I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like. Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there.
unless it improves and advances the system at an alarming rate ?
September 18, 2015, 04:28:52 AM
Hi again,
I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like. Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there.
I do like the [1] suggestion
Sorry about the colours, there's a limited palate to choose from in the change colour drop down box.
I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like. Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there.
I do like the [1] suggestion
I couldn't really distinguish which was which. All were dark colors. 
How about 0: -0 / +0 [1] for someone in level 1 trust list? Just saying..
How about 0: -0 / +0 [1] for someone in level 1 trust list? Just saying..
Sorry about the colours, there's a limited palate to choose from in the change colour drop down box.
September 18, 2015, 03:23:55 AM
i personally dont think Bad bear is going to bother about this ,the motive of the DT is to keep the network strong and possibly in less diversity or less people..
making 5 levels is going to add up many BS users..
making 5 levels is going to add up many BS users..
September 18, 2015, 02:58:35 AM
I couldn't really distinguish which was which. All were dark colors.
How about 0: -0 / +0 [1] for someone in level 1 trust list? Just saying..
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
The person I have placed on my untrusted list manually eg ~UserXNameHere gets a different colour (say) purple
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
While someone on the default trust gets another colour again, say brown
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
which would then give our three users distinct markers
How about 0: -0 / +0 [1] for someone in level 1 trust list? Just saying..
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
The person I have placed on my untrusted list manually eg ~UserXNameHere gets a different colour (say) purple
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
While someone on the default trust gets another colour again, say brown
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
which would then give our three users distinct markers
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
September 17, 2015, 07:31:27 PM
I have a proposal to vary the trust system that is used here.
People can have all kinds of trusts which are shown differently for each person; X doesn't trust Y so any trusts that Y gave out don't show up on X's trust list.
A recent glance over the various trust's as they stand on my trust indicator shows examples such as:
In each case I can gage how trusted someone is with the dark green / lime green / black / orange / red indices, however none of these show me if a user is on the default trust list, is a level one, two three what ever level of trust.
Three person's can each have
but in each case, one is a newbie with no trust from any one the second I have had a tiff with and so have manually placed them as untrusted in the trust box and the third is on the default trust list.
So, what I propose is this: The oblique (or forward slash) colour be modified to indicate visually if a person is on the default trust list, has been manually added to the untrusted list or is level zero, one, two, three up to (say) a trust level five.
Everyone starts as a newbie with black as if you never transact with anyone else, you keep your black oblique.
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
The person I have placed on my untrusted list manually eg ~UserXNameHere gets a different colour (say) purple
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
While someone on the default trust gets another colour again, say brown
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
which would then give our three users distinct markers
Then it would simply be a matter of assigning another colour again to each of the five trust levels
You could go to ten trust levels, but who's going to trust someone that obscure...?
Another variation would be to reverse the direction of the Oblique if someone is on the default trust
Trust: 0: -0 \ +0
The above could also be used to indicate someone was once on the DT but is no longer on DT list, or could have their oblique greyed
Trust: 0: -0 / +0 (just pretend it's grey people)
Apologies if I've posted to the wrong forum, I'll shift if someone suggests a better spot for it.
Anyways, thanks for reading.
People can have all kinds of trusts which are shown differently for each person; X doesn't trust Y so any trusts that Y gave out don't show up on X's trust list.
A recent glance over the various trust's as they stand on my trust indicator shows examples such as:
- Trust: 128: -0 / +16
- Trust: 10: -0 / +1
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -1 / +4
- Trust:
: -1 / +25 - Trust: -112: -7 / +16
In each case I can gage how trusted someone is with the dark green / lime green / black / orange / red indices, however none of these show me if a user is on the default trust list, is a level one, two three what ever level of trust.
Three person's can each have
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
but in each case, one is a newbie with no trust from any one the second I have had a tiff with and so have manually placed them as untrusted in the trust box and the third is on the default trust list.
So, what I propose is this: The oblique (or forward slash) colour be modified to indicate visually if a person is on the default trust list, has been manually added to the untrusted list or is level zero, one, two, three up to (say) a trust level five.
Everyone starts as a newbie with black as
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
The person I have placed on my untrusted list manually eg ~UserXNameHere gets a different colour (say) purple
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
While someone on the default trust gets another colour again, say brown
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
which would then give our three users distinct markers
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
Then it would simply be a matter of assigning another colour again to each of the five trust levels
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0 - blue - trust level 1
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0 - teal - trust level 2
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0 - beige - trust level 3
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0 - maroon - trust level 4
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0 - pink - trust level 5
You could go to ten trust levels, but who's going to trust someone that obscure...?
Another variation would be to reverse the direction of the Oblique if someone is on the default trust
Trust: 0: -0 \ +0
The above could also be used to indicate someone was once on the DT but is no longer on DT list, or could have their oblique greyed
Trust: 0: -0 / +0 (just pretend it's grey people)
Apologies if I've posted to the wrong forum, I'll shift if someone suggests a better spot for it.
Anyways, thanks for reading.
Jump to: