Topic: Is the Default trust system still working/active? - page 5. (Read 22791 times)

Not really, I think what we should do is stop tagging for usefull reasons. That might be a first.

Second, having a DT system based on activity and trading

I'm starting to think that we need an additional system that works in parallel with the actual system, I've reported over 600 accounts for abusing from newbies to legendary, only 20 has been tagged from DT members 2 DT members.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.42378900

I am totally schoked. I have never imagine that a forum can have such a fucked up trust system.

Maybe because it is so big and going for such a long time?

Maybe because corruption and image is more important?

This is bad, nice for sharing this info! You have some merit from me

This was because the forum server needed to calculate everyone’s trust score who appeared on someone’s trust page. This could not be done periodically globally because everyone’s trust settings, including their trust list is potentially different.

---

I don’t necessarily think it is a good thing to have sent a lot of negative ratings. Above all, it is important to have accurate ratings, including those that meet the definition of the description of the type of rating you are giving and that third parties are not in disagreement with. Another useful metric would include the number of people that openly dispute your ratings, although it should be acknowledged that some people will simply be unreasonable and will refuse to accept their behavior indicates they are either a scammer or will try to scam in the future.

Also, uncovering a difficult to detect scam that has gone unnoticed by others is better than tagging many low hanging fruits and/or tagging after checking others’ work.

If I remember correctly, there used to be problems loading the trust page if it was too big. That's why the trust page no longer shows the status of the tagged/tagging user.

So I guess that makes me the alpha negger on bitcointalk--that actually surprises me, because this is a statistic that I've never even thought about before.  If you'd asked me to guess who'd given out the most negs, I would have said either you or Lauda.  Interesting.

If I'm not mistaken, I think most of the red trust I've given out has been for account selling or buying, so this just goes to show how bad that particular problem is on the forum.

You have just over 500 neg trust sent.   The highest person is The Pharmacist, with almost 2,500.

I'm starting to have a big number of feedback sent, does it have a limit in numbers?

I agree. The link should lead to that 'suggest' page, so the custom list would really get made.


Actually not even that bad idea, as I am sure it would work quite nicely. But it's a bit silly... no real need for new shitcoins & it would cause loads of problems for the future to have such a bag to carry.

I think that force is the best way. Just remove DT and people have no other choice than to use the 'suggest' page to make their trust list. A "personal DT" would be much better, because users would know that the list is formed by their own choices, by their hand-picked users.

Or we could airdrop worthless tokens Howeycoins for creating custom lists. 90% of the forum would do it overnight.

There's this suggestion:
I think it's a very good idea! A shiny badge under a name will be something others notice, and if clicking it brings you to your trust settings, more users can be encouraged to make their own list.
(I haven't made my own list yet, because I want to be able to see trust the way most users see it)

Any updates regarding this?

In the end, I agree with what you say and I don't think we need to change the DT system (but they can do, is not a big deal to me if it will be a better version of this one), we just need to add few DT1 and some DT2 with them.
I think that with only adding very active people it can change the forum in a better place.

This forum stands out by not tying a person's trustworthiness to how often they post.

I don't mind the current DT system however centralized it may be because I trust and have great respect for the vast majority of those currently enlisted.
I think they check eachother pretty well also when their are disagreements everyone comes together to make sense of the situation, even non-DT have a voice, and usually everyone steps away with continuing mutual respect. Everyone misunderstands or is wrong sometimes.

But, if you really don't like it for being a "top down" structure I think you could scrap the appointed positions of power part and rather use an algorithm to calculate the weight of everyones sent feedback to be summed to each accounts final trust score.

Something like..
[(Activity/1000)Rank](Trust/20) = Weight of left feedback

Variables for "Rank" could be something like Legendary=1 Hero=0.75 Sr.=0.5 Full=0.25 with all lower ranks zero and "Trust" would be the feedback leavers current trust score. If the solution is negative (negative summed trust) weight=0
(Abuse resistance)

For a 900 activity hero with a trust score of 50 leaving a positive trust [(900/1000)0.75](50/20)=1.6875 round to 2 decimals would give the feedback receiver +1.69 to their trust score.

For a (very trusted old member) legendary with 2000 activity and 200 trust score giving a positive [(2000/1000)1](200/20)= 20 would leave +20

So the more established and trusted a member is, the harder their trust hits (more weight), and you would have to be atleast a full member, with net positive trust, for your feedback to carry any weight at all.  

A persons Trust score would be the sum of all received feedback. Negative left feedback would just be negative in the sum and subtract from the final score with equal weight.

In the risked BTC column you could give the option to enter a modifier from 0 to 1 so a person could reduce the weight of their feedback if they want.
He could type in "1.25 #0.5" so the legendary example above could leave only +10, or type "1.25 #0.1" to leave only +2. (for 1.25 risked BTC example)
[(Activity/1000)Rank](Trust/20)(user modifier)

So a person could tone down the weight of the feedback they leave if they feel it is appropriate so they wouldn't have to be so conservative with every feedback they leave which is the case now. Maybe leave it continually editable for later changes.

If you wanted to keep the Time part you could add [(Activity/1000)Rank](Trust/20)(Time)(user modifier) where each month equals 0.1 maxing out in 10 months as 1 so it would grow throughout 10 months to its full strength.

I'm no mathematician and I just chose my numbers to try to get a reasonably ranged result.

I don't much like to make suggestions because I am just a nobody and not a genius but I think a system like this would be cool to see.
I don't think this should be done but rather should be considered and brainstormed upon unless their are serious flaws in my logic I am not seeing.

I would probably just leave it alone because it is a lot better than nothing. Maybe an algorithmic system like this could be implemented in parallel with the current system at first so the old system doesn't have to get completely scrapped while working out the bugs and adjusting to the new system.

I don't consider this "a suggestion for alteration to the current DT1 list" so won't make an OP about it.

I sense cryptocvators idea is essentially what theymos has already  shunned (making dt3 viewable like 1 and 2 are).

If it goes ahead, a lot of moderation of inaccurate forefinger ,Igbo be required as dt3 members might have given some negs where a dt2 would have given a neutral for example.

Trust system is working fine, but DT list should refresh. I have made a thread about inactive DT member list, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45474059 . There are lots if DT inactive. Especially on DT1. So if DT1 is inactive who will add new DT2? And I think there is more people's who deserve DT member's. I think list has not updated from long time. I believe list need to refresh. More DT could be add due many are inactive.

You can get suggestion from existing DT member's if you don't trust on voting. However current trust system should be continue due to prevent scam from forum. Just need improve with time. I think it's possible upgrade few members from DT2 to DT1 so DT1 could expand thier trust network.

I tried using my own custom trust list, but was fairly quick to find problems with trust ratings within my trust network, and frequently had to research why  certain people whose ratings I didn't agree with was in my trust network, and excluding many who either gave many ratings I disagreed with, or who included many people who I didn't want in my trust network.

I suspect the root cause reason why so many do not use custom trust lists is because so many people are bad at creating maintaining a custom list, and cannot be bothered to keep it updated. It only takes a small number of people whose ratings/list is 'trusted' that maintains a bad trust list to cause problems in the entire trust network.

I want to think about this topic some more....more to come on this subject

The current dt2 list did not stop 2 years ago. Marlboroza and the pharmacist were recently added within the last 6 months.

Regardless, it does feel like a good ol boys club at times and more people need to be added to dt1 so the current lists can increase and more users have a valuable opinion as far as who is or who isnt a scammer.

Right now with all the scam icos going around, you can never have enough eyes protecting the community.

Doesnt matter what is done, some people will be pissed off while some will obviously be pleased.

There will always be users who just do not get along. Only thing I would like to see is people consider the drama train that will arise when deciding on whom to add to either list. Choose users who can have an unbiased opinion and help the forum vs assholes who will go on a power trip.

There really is no reason to create a new list every month or whatnot. The users that made dt1 have earned that prestige. They have proven they belong on the list.

I do agree however that inactives or scammers should be immediately removed.

Default Trust has done a pretty good job of holding scammers at bay.

I believe without the system, the amount of scams would be several times higher.

I'm OK with pushing custom lists (I don't use them) but removing the trust system completely would be a mistake of epic proportions.  People would run ponzis, promote paypal, bid on their own auctions,  post fake facts, etc. etc. 

Personally I have tagged over 1,300! untrustworthy people.  My actions have led to the majority of scammers thinking twice about pulling a common scam.