Topic: Just a thought: make orange and green feedback black if it's a small percentage. (Read 519 times)

I am not familiar with the conflict (or I have forgotten the details over the very long duration of which it's been active) but I do think your principles have merit. It shouldn't be that users are merely allowed to spread around feedback with flawed justification just because "the majority" of their feedback is rightfully justified. Again, we fall into arbitrary metrics of 'what does it mean by the majority' or 'what is the ratio of bad:good feedback we must cross to which we distrust a user?'

What that entails is the following rule for DefaultTrust: "As long as you don't abuse it too much, you're allowed to abuse it."

... and that's not going to be good for a trust system.

It is possible. People like you just need to stop including untrustworthy individuals in the trust network that damage the credibility of DT so long as it suits their agenda. Rather than find “the next best thing” for your inappropriate managing of your trust network, why not tackle the actual problem? Bitcointalk doesn’t need to be led by sheep or find ways to wallpaper over nefarious behavior.

Great idea, but if that would have been possible, it would have happened by now. I'm trying the next best thing here.

I think enough topics have been filled with the Vod <> OgNasty drama. I'm not entertaining that in this one.

A better idea would be to get the people out of DT that are leaving trusted members unwarranted negative feedback. For example, the BS that Vod leaves me. Why do you support such trash ratings being in DT Loyce? That’s the problem that needs to be addressed.

I still think I would like to avoid arbitrary metrics for disincentivizing users from looking at trust feedback. Whether it's neutral, positive, or negative, trusted or untrusted, I think if a user is going to do anything with another account, they should take a look at all feedback posted on the account.

The questions that should be brought to the forefront are: what is the intent of changing the color? Is it treating a symptom of a problem, or the cause of the problem?

I wouldn't try and pretent to be capable of "reasoning " yet robovac. Better off sticking to copy and paste raw data with very mild processing.

We find it strange that you should be worrying about this just as some "non" gang members are about to "nearly" get into the much guarded DT1 and when they do the ratings from other non gang members and acolytes will start to become more visible. Then again you couldn't have worked that out so someone must have told you to make this post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of2HU3LGdbo

ALL RED WARNINGS or red tags should be viewed as WARNINGS and attract attention if they deserve to be there AT ALL. Of course MANY of the most "untrusted" with multiple red marks and no positive (because they don't trade) have zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing AT ALL.  So should not even have any red trust.
  

Of course you can't do 20 good trades then scam one person (that most DT members are too scared to red trust) and that is all fine and should be ignored or not considered when trading with them. The very idea is completely stupid. So not entirely surprising that a weasel brained moron like you though it up.

Of course the best scammers not the retards who scam for tiny amounts will build up a GOOD trust score first to entice the BIG SCAM later. As soon as they DO A BIG SCAM it needs to be drawn attention to immediately even if they are DT gang leaders.
 

Since most DT1 and their acolytes dominate the numbers for visible trust and clearly don't choose or rather they DO CHOOSE to ignore the SCAMMY behavior of other DT1 and their pals then you need any negative to gain as much notice as possible.

Really though this would be a moot point if the old trust system was deleted (like it should be) and only type 2 and higher flags existed.  Anything below this does not indicate the person is a scammer, ONLY that some people speculate they may be going to scam.

Bogus system, and you are trying to make it even EASIER for scamming at the top to go under the radar.

Of course we sympathize with OG who has been damaged by rogue DT1 but that is the fault of the old crap system and theymos allowing observable scammers like tman, lauda and their kind into positions of trust.


Very strange how this only becomes a consideration now of all times.

A BETTER IDEA is make the old trust system that causes all the arguments, is subjective junk, and does not even warrant a type 2 flag or above  VANISH.

or

Leave the scoring off and call it feedback only. If people can't be bothered to read the feedback, do their own research and reach the optimal opinion let the lazy and greedy slobs take risks they need not if they had read it.

Your posts all seem a waste of time, you are either presenting your merit stats, trying to validate and impress with your cycled bag of junk derived from blathering on about this meaningless and dangerous gamed metric or the OLD trust system which again is subjective, and dangerous garbage.

Try to ramming into the furniture more until you start to understand this robovac.


TLDR that grew just as long sorry

Stupid idea that only serves to whitewash the legitimate wrongs that some of the most dangerous scammers and extortionists here have done. Presumably only presented now since the DT1 members start to fear a "few" that will not 100% support their untrustworthy ways may start having some of their feedback go visible and some nice red marks may start to attract attention on their account.

Actually theymos should really consider that with the warnings at the top of the pages. If any DT members believe there is even 1 instance of scamming worthy of a negative trust then they should get a banner. Not say if you have more green than red you are okay.


If you find the DT members negative trust bogus, remove them.


Having this abuse grandfathered in to the trust system is bogus. Get rid of the old system or make it feedback only with no score.

There is no reasoning behind if you do a fair trade 20x then scam someone 1x you are okay or you should whitewash it. Either the scores mean something or they do not.

Thats why only the type 2 flags and above should be relevant AT ALL. Anything below it is clearly subjective and therefore wide open to abuse and gaming for personal gain and retribution.

Anything less should just be FEEDBACK with  no scores. People read it or don't red it. Too lazy to research then you get scammed. You could still have DT feedback at the top IF YOU MUST but with no score so the comments could cast a negative OPINION and give their subjective argument but the readers decide and there is NO SCORE for these highly paid sig campaign manager friends to weaponize to shoot down non DT applicants. OPINIONS about things not directly related to financial danger should not carry a financial danger warning. That is fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain.  It just clouds the issue and causes a ton of fighting and misuse of power.

Feel free to debunk our central points.

Very stupid idea that also punishes the honest and stronger DT members (none really there in dt yet although some are "more" honest and strong than others there )and creates even more disincentive to speak up under the current conditions. Which are not really suitable, but still , that would tip it even more.

Type 2 flags and above have shown where there are HARD RULES that are not open to opinion then they are not often if ever broken. Where there is ANY subjectivity involved you get immediate abuse or usage that is not beneficial to the trust system or the environment here.

If there are misused negative feedback between DT members, especially between DT1 members, there are drawbacks in current Trust system. Those drawbacks should have solution with improvements in core algorithm of Trust system, rather than mitigate severity by changing color of negative from orange to black.

I think I can use the term, False Trust points, for misused trust points (both positive or negative). False Trust points are easy to solve with DT2 members because they are easier to be excluded from DT trust lists, but if those false trust points come from DT1 members, it might stay for long period, for years (as we saw).

Changing algorithm for Trust is obviously a difficult thing, but if there is issues, we should solve it from the root.

Let's look back at Trust sytem history
Original Trust system;
Default Trust change;
Trust flags
Trust has never been suggested to use for disagreements/ dislikes from theymos' guide.

So how about we try to solve the real problems instead of covering up for them. I know you mean well with this suggestion but from my point of reasoning it'll only encourage the giving of those retaliatory feedbacks the more since the forum has already prepared a special treatment for them. The truth of the matter is, the privilege of been a DT member is been misuses by this individuals for their personal benefits, they're discrediting the system and no longer worthy of the positions.

Let them stop acting like babies and resolve their issue internally withouts dragging the reputation of the forum's system down with their reputations. Let assume the suggestion was to be implemented, the positive trust you speak off (as a criteria to recieve this special treatment) have you considered those might not even be worthy ones.

Yes, dude.. you really got that a bit early.

It's turning the same now with many members around who are not really an harm to a newbie here. As you already know the main moto of theymos behind it overall is warning newbie visitors of the forum from probable scams around, but its seems to be changing the direction towards a system to attack arising in personal disputes. ( No real trade happened, and no funds are lost in most of the recent back and forth of feedbacks between reputed members here if you see. )

Hope your suggestion would make a difference !

Your suggestion is actually good.

I have been seeing lots of DT1 members having some negatives reflect on their profiles lately moreover some feedback is just an exchange of tags between the parties over just some small disagreements.

If it's not worked upon it will make getting a couple of orange tags look meaningless and less feared in the long runs as  it will be common sight in the forum.

Your suggested approach would help differentiate between a genuine scammer who has one single tag from a DT member and a person who is not likely to scam as they are even trusted by a number of people but just got a tag due to some sort of disagreement or grudge with someone.

I think reviewing all feedback should be encouraged, regardless of how much positive or negative they have.

Some mentioned in the OP should not reasonably be dangerous to trust, and others should in no way be trusted under any circumstances. If someone has a negative rating for something frivolous, a potential trading parter will see it and promptly ignore it. If someone does something warranting negative trust (eg, selectively scamming), but has many friends on DT, they can get many positive ratings to have the negative rating be less prominent.

I agree with the first suggestion, but disagree with the second suggestion.

---

For the second suggestion, I think if something implemented, it should stick with what we have with Flag. Therefore I suggest two conditions and related criteria:
1. If total raters (both positive, negative, and neutral) are less than 10:
The rate should be Three more positive raters than negative raters, and vice versa to activate it (green / orange colors).
2. If total raters are more than 10:
The rate should be three-fold higher to activate a specific color.
For example: If user A has 15 postitive raters, and 3 negative raters, 0 neutral rater. In total, that user has 18 raters, so we will apply the second condition.
Then, because the ratio or total postive raters / negative raters is 15/3 = 5 > 3. That results in activation of black color on positive ratings, rather than Orange; and vice versa when Black color will be activated to replace Green color.

This would make it more difficult for account to get redemption after getting multiple negative trusts, especially if the positive trust comes after, and is judged not to carry same weight (colour) as regular positive trusts.
And also puts the judgement of DTs who left the feedback up for discussion, while encouraging majority vote.

Would it be an idea to reduce the strength of Trust color in certain circumstances?

Many users on DT1 with a lot of green feedback also have one or a few negative tags.
Examples:
My suggestion is to make the orange numbers black for users who have at least 10 times more positive than negative feedback.
That would make the above examples look like this:

Additionally, I suggest to make the green numbers black for users who have less than twice as much positive as negative trust.

My reasoning behind this suggestion is that real scammers easily receive a lot of negatives and shouldn't have any green feedback left, and negative feedback for highly trusted users can be less prominent as they aren't a real risk in most cases.


(Editing this quote was a lot of work on Mobile, but the weather is too nice to go inside again)