Topic: Is it time to change some negative trust ratings to neutral or delete them? - page 2. (Read 838 times)

I don't think I'm an active DT member at the moment, so it's quite possible he didn't realize I had recently removed his negative feedback and was just attacking me as he normally would, which is why he had the negative feedback to begin with.  



Yes, we all go through phases when we join the bitcointalk community.  Once you've been around long enough you learn to identify common user behaviors based on their length of time in the community.  I went through a scam buster phase myself and had a back and forth with one of the mods in a section of the forum reserved for staff and donators a few years back.  I was enraged at the time that the administration wasn't doing more to try and stop obvious scams.  This community existed for about 2 years before I came around though, so I guess it took me some time to get on board with the way things should be done here to keep activity moving sustainably into the future.  One thing about making allegations in real life, there are consequences when you wrongly go after someone, and that is a piece of the checks and balances system that is clearly missing here as a result of poor behavior amongst DT members.  This community takes a stance that it's ok if a couple honest users get wrongly convicted as long as many dishonest users receive warnings and I think that is deserving of a change.

"Some Negative Ratings" - YES. This is something that should be totally considered on a case-by-case basis. If someone is tagged as a scammer, doesn't matter who tagged them, if they have relevant proofs for the tag then the tag should stay. SwingFist's case is the right example where the tag should be removed.

Having said that, removing all tags from the person if they decide to leave the forum is a bad idea as that would put so many scammers on lose. Just saw a shill account request Vod to be removed from the DT since he's leaving the forum and all his tags to be removed. - That is a horrible idea.

If the ratings were given to proven scammers and those who attempted to scam, I have no problem with that. If they were given for other reasons, they might deserve a second look, depending on the case of course.  Are you talking about a particular case?

Unfortunately, everyone is allowed to write any trust rating they see fit because no one checks or controls what is written there. A bunch of members (including myself) got a negative rating by some newbie a few years ago for wearing a FortuneJack sig. The user played and lost money on FJ and what better way to avenge himself than to abuse the system and tag those who advertise the casino.   

So you are getting harassed by the member you removed the rating from? He is angry that you changed your mind and decided not to tag him    

That reply of yours reminded of my thread Should all scam busting techniques be made public? Many scam investigations are also a way for scammers to train on how to better themselves and not get caught.

I've removed quite a few negative and neutral feedbacks lately in an attempt to try and spread more positivity and limit negativity.  Unfortunately, I've already had to add one back for a user who immediately began harassing me after I removed a feedback rating for them threatening to physically harm me.  Sometimes being the bigger person doesn't pay.  I don't have the answer on how to fix this problem, but am a firm believer that if the negative feedbacks were completely removed it would not result in more scams being pulled and would also likely cut down on scam attempts as newbie scammers would stop getting engagement from established users making them feel like they are getting some sort of results out of their effort.  Another bonus would be reduced spam as these newbie wannabe scammers would stop having to create and establish new alt accounts constantly as soon as they're discovered by the "spread hate" crowd.  At some point I hope these abusive negativity spreading users realize they're only training newbies how to avoid being linked to their scams and that their attempts to save the gullible are realistically training otherwise harmless scammers to be better at what they do.

If only it were that simple.  When Lauda got removed from DT for various reasons.  A few users took it upon themselves to copy verbatim the negative trust feedback Lauda had left.  (It's been discussed elsewhere who and why etc).  What they've done by taking a snap shot of Lauda's distrust feedback is lock users into negatives.  Lauda can then sit back knowing that users have multiple negatives from copy cats lemmings who never verified the validity of Lauda's feedback's, nore have they bothered to go back and review those negatives at a later date.

It's up to you whether or not you take the word of a Lemming who's followed a cat off of a cliff.

It is possible that he/she went over some of the ratings that were handed out and revised those that were no longer valid or deserved to be altered. I do remember when a member from the local Croatian board (RegulusHr) got banned for plagiarism that Lauda tagged him for stealing content.

More than a year passed before RegulusHr was forgiven and got unbanned. Before he did, Lauda deleted her feedback.
In any case, Lauda is not on DT anymore and her ratings aren't the problem here.

For my very own experience with a Lauda feedback, I would say there is a very good chance Lauda made adjustments before he ceased to exist in the Lauda form, or maybe I just got lucky that he kind-heartedly reconsidered adjusting his feedback to me.


Made me remember that verryyyy longgggg listttttttt of I think it was called SMAs or sMAS( Signature Manager Against Sp--eech, i mean Spam.), time flied and it seemed that the SMAS no longer have a use, or I might be wrong. lol

P.S.

I made it on that list too, you know. lol

Negative feedback is only affecting the people from participating on signature campaigns while the other real scammers throw that account and starts to build their new account with some great discussions and guides then merits but there is no perfect system is their so the forum members need to educate themsleve to avoid those scammers with their common sense and never forget to use the escrow for any kind of trading.

Everyone will suggest some sort of change that will benefit them personally. 

It doesn't cost anything to keep trust or keep feedback for a person even years after they stop posting.  Each person should have the right to ~exclude whoever they want to silence from default trust, and each person can decide for themselves when old trust becomes irrelevant.

Anyone trading with a person tagged as a scammer should still check the untrusted trust ratings of the person and consider the risk of trading with the person. Anyone not doing this is going to eventually get scammed one way or another.

---

Regarding trust ratings decaying sent by those that are "inactive". Maybe as an alternative, trust scores could be calculated using only the last however many years of trust ratings in the person's trust network, and it could be customizable. Or, to prevent someone from scamming, abandoning their account for 5 years, and coming back to scam again, the measurement could be activity periods in which at least so many posts were made. This could apply to both positive and negative trust, and would prevent someone who participated in two deals five years ago from having a positive rating, when he has not traded with anyone in years.

That's a lot of ifs. The passing of time doesn't make one less of a scammer and vice versa. But you are right, that could happen. Because of that, such a drastic change in the feedback system will never happen I think. Personally, I don't think it should either. What I would like to see is someone looking at it on a case-by-case basis if the affected user expresses a wish to have that done. The same way that is done with copy-pasting, spamming, trolling, and other rules breakers.   

If I had such a feedback by a DT member, and it was obviously no longer valid for any reasons, I would want that removed. I think that is easier fixed than removing the user from DT and having other DT members re-writing possibly 50-100 trust ratings of him that are still valid. To repeat what I mentioned to suchmoon previously, getting a counter feedback isn't ideal either. Even though I received a positive rating, my account is still painted in yellow as well. If you read the posted ratings on my profile you would understand the situation and the reasons it is like it is, but it can be even better. Not to mention that I didn't deserve the positive trust and only got it to counter the negative.   

With trust flags negative trust feedback has become redundant and a negative factor for the community. It should probably be done away with altogether. I doubt negative feedback has had much of an effect if any when it comes to stopping scams and flags can handle the job just fine.

Maybe I came back too late to oppose your opinion as suchmoon and timelord responded to you. But, I still want to confirm my opinion.
Why should we replace Lauda's feedback when he's not a DT? His feedback were almost worthless at this point, but for TMAN and others, their feedbacks are visible to a lot of members, it can be a minus point during the trade.
Perhaps you misunderstood my opinion when I mentioned Lauda. I mentioned Lauda and the replacement of his feedback because marlboroza did. In particular, marlboroza replaced the feedback to the fraudulent account.

Perhaps none, since Lauda has been out of DT a few times already and the world did not end. I doubt that any one person in DT is irreplaceable. There is quite a bit of redundancy. Also keep in mind that all those scammers tagged by Lauda won't automatically start to scam the minute Lauda is out of DT, nor are Lauda's ratings disappearing - just moving to the "Untrusted" part for most users, except those with custom trust lists.

There were a group of users who, when Lauda was removed from the DT a couple of years ago (for previous indiscretions) blindly copied Lauda's Negative trust feed-backs dishing out identical negatives as thought they were their own.  No checks or balances to ensure that the negatives were truthful, thus perpetuating grudges in some cases that Lauda has/had with others.

As some have said in the immediate previous posts, peoples views can, do and should change over time with new information and a better understanding of what had occurred in the past.

Who is going to chase up those mirrored negative trust feed-backs to ensure they decay or are removed later on?  Answer - no one.

here we are talking about a couple of cases. But Lauda leaves a lot of ratings, perhaps most on the forum, negative or positive no matter. Removing/ignoring her tags would apply to everyone else even those who deserved it and there are plenty of them.
How much Lauda's tags need to be replaced?

What happens to real scammers tagged by now-inactive accounts? (Historic accounts and their taggers from ~4 years ago) This method is going to decay their trust as well, and if said scammers ever wake up/get reanimated the red trust will be gone.

Not that this even matters for guests since they can't see trust ratings in the first place, but they should be able to. They need to know about users' behavior too because most people won't bother registering an account.

No, that's not what I mean. The DT members can replace the feedback with other feeback. But only really useful feedback was replaced. Feedback similar to those listed above should be ignored. I take the example of TMAN, we can replace all his feedback by other DT, except for the feedback on BestChange account. Since you commented on TMAN's inappropriate feedback, I think it's the best one to remove.

---

But if TMAN and others are excluded, those that are included by TMAN will be at a disadvantage. I think that's not a good thing, they won't want TMAN to be excluded, maybe

I agree with this just about 100%. People change over time.
If I (or anyone) leaves someone good or bad trust and then never check in here again it could be sitting out there for years while something changed in their lives and they went over to the other side.

On that same note, people who are inactive here should have their positive trust decay. Yes, it's a bit unfair to leave the negative out there but if you have not logged on for 2+ years are you really the same person you were back then? Probably, but you might not be.

Just my view. I think we are all certain that the way it works is not going to change but we can hope.

-Dave

Perhaps if a negative trust feedback were to "decay" over time if an account that left the feedback becomes inactive for a period of time.  Eventually, a behind the curtain score starts at 100 then dwindles away to zero at which point the feedback reverts to neutral.

THEN if the account continues to remain dormant, the neutral feedback also diminishes from e.g. 1,000 (10,000??) down to zero and then disappears

I think it'd be reasonable if both the 100 to zero and 1,000/10,000 clocks ticked over once per week (100 weeks is close to two years - more than enough time for others to be warned).

Perhaps to counter if a user is away then returns; for each one month the score ticks over one notch in the opposite direction until it returns to the 100% score??

---

---

I personally feel Banned users trust feedback and default trust should time out and evaporate regardless of an inactive user coming back and recharging the score.

Likewise, any "Nuked" user's trust feedback and default trust should be "nuked" when the account is.