Topic: Marketplace trust - page 27. (Read 83235 times)
Theymos, in the interest of simplicity, can you give the formulas for each of the 4 numbers?
It doesn't become meaningless, it just turns from a blank slate to trusting the groupthink basically. At that point, it's just about pruning inappropriate feedback. You could trust *others* to prune it for you I guess and that would make much more sense for a "trust list" if you ask me. It'd basically be saying "I trust Theymos to prune this list of bullshit claims by scammer sockpuppets".
To me, being able to hear every single claim of scam or whatnot is better than potentially missing out on it just because I didn't know whose name to enter into my trust list to get access to that warning.
To me, being able to hear every single claim of scam or whatnot is better than potentially missing out on it just because I didn't know whose name to enter into my trust list to get access to that warning.
I think there will end up being some people who maintain good trust lists, and all you'll have to do is trust them to have a solid trust network. As of right now I like the blank slate idea, it's better to start off not trusting anyone than trusting everyone, that's usually how it works around here (you earn the trust).
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
It doesn't become meaningless, it just turns from a blank slate to trusting the groupthink basically. At that point, it's just about pruning inappropriate feedback. You could trust *others* to prune it for you I guess and that would make much more sense for a "trust list" if you ask me. It'd basically be saying "I trust Theymos to prune this list of bullshit claims by scammer sockpuppets".
To me, being able to hear every single claim of scam or whatnot is better than potentially missing out on it just because I didn't know whose name to enter into my trust list to get access to that warning.
To me, being able to hear every single claim of scam or whatnot is better than potentially missing out on it just because I didn't know whose name to enter into my trust list to get access to that warning.
I think we really just need to give it some time to see how it plays out. Per what theymos has said part of it is based off of age of feedback, so we won't really know for a few months. Plus if it is bad it can always be changed/removed.
But then trust becomes meaningless, as people will start making sockpuppets and then rate them heavily, and noobs will be fooled into some scammer with +2434.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
So then where do the numbers come from? Trusted feedback only? So you could have 1000 members giving you "untrusted" feedback for your scam, but 2 members who you trust, oblivious or unaffected by the scam, and this would give you +2 / -0 on your status? Am I understanding this correctly?
I'm not sure of this part. Based off of what TradeFortress said a few posts ago, I believe the numbers are based off of people you trust. I'd like to hear from theymos confirming if this is true or not, as I'm not sure. It would make sense if the numbers only came from feedback of people in your trust network, otherwise what's the point? The system would be too easy to game by spamming feedback if the trust network weren't involved in the number system.
Honestly it could go either way. It can be gamed based on people's lack of knowledge of someone's trustworthiness too as far as I can tell. It honestly makes more sense to default everyone to trusting their opinion, and let people remove people's opinions based on ignoring them on the forum or just deleting them from the list.
Yes, but it's not just the people you trust, but also the people they trust too (unless you set the depth to 0). So if they trust someone who is one of the 1000 members (pretty likely), then you'll still see it.
So then where do the numbers come from? Trusted feedback only? So you could have 1000 members giving you "untrusted" feedback for your scam, but 2 members who you trust, oblivious or unaffected by the scam, and this would give you +2 / -0 on your status? Am I understanding this correctly?
I'm not sure of this part. Based off of what TradeFortress said a few posts ago, I believe the numbers are based off of people you trust. I'd like to hear from theymos confirming if this is true or not, as I'm not sure. It would make sense if the numbers only came from feedback of people in your trust network, otherwise what's the point? The system would be too easy to game by spamming feedback if the trust network weren't involved in the number system.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
How is it a good way to centralize feedback when no one can see the feedback unless they trust the person who left it first?
I thought anyone could look at feedback. When I click on a trust profile I see:
Trusted feedback
Untrusted feedback
Sent feedback
I would imagine feedback left for the person (that's not trusted by me) would show up under Untrusted feedback. When I look at John Ks trust page I see a few things under untrusted feedback, because those people aren't in my trust network.
So then where do the numbers come from? Trusted feedback only? So you could have 1000 members giving you "untrusted" feedback for your scam, but 2 members who you trust, oblivious or unaffected by the scam, and this would give you +2 / -0 on your status? Am I understanding this correctly?
How is it a good way to centralize feedback when no one can see the feedback unless they trust the person who left it first?
I thought anyone could look at feedback. When I click on a trust profile I see:
Trusted feedback
Untrusted feedback
Sent feedback
I would imagine feedback left for the person (that's not trusted by me) would show up under Untrusted feedback. When I look at John Ks trust page I see a few things under untrusted feedback, because those people aren't in my trust network.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
Or is it that when I leave a negative feedback for him, no one will see it unless they have me added in their trust list?
That one!
The trust system is about the opinions you trust, meaning you trust their feedback.
So everyone potentially sees something completely different? So as Chaang Noi was saying, what are the chances of someone in *my* circle of trust being affected by a scam before I attempt to read said scammer's profile and find that there is no feedback (because I didn't trust someone else who already left bad feedback)?
I'm trying very hard to be hopeful for this, but every response makes me lose more faith in it being useful at all. It sounds more like "Market politics" than "market trust".
I don't see it being very useful for the scam side, more to confirm that someone may or may not be trustworthy. It's just a good way to centrally record transactions and better than feedback threads.
How is it a good way to centralize feedback when no one can see the feedback unless they trust the person who left it first?
Or is it that when I leave a negative feedback for him, no one will see it unless they have me added in their trust list?
That one!
The trust system is about the opinions you trust, meaning you trust their feedback.
So everyone potentially sees something completely different? So as Chaang Noi was saying, what are the chances of someone in *my* circle of trust being affected by a scam before I attempt to read said scammer's profile and find that there is no feedback (because I didn't trust someone else who already left bad feedback)?
I'm trying very hard to be hopeful for this, but every response makes me lose more faith in it being useful at all. It sounds more like "Market politics" than "market trust".
I don't see it being very useful for the scam side, more to confirm that someone may or may not be trustworthy. It's just a good way to centrally record transactions and better than feedback threads.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
Or is it that when I leave a negative feedback for him, no one will see it unless they have me added in their trust list?
That one!
The trust system is about the opinions you trust, meaning you trust their feedback.
So everyone potentially sees something completely different? So as Chaang Noi was saying, what are the chances of someone in *my* circle of trust being affected by a scam before I attempt to read said scammer's profile and find that there is no feedback (because I didn't trust someone else who already left bad feedback)?
I'm trying very hard to be hopeful for this, but every response makes me lose more faith in it being useful at all. It sounds more like "Market politics" than "market trust".
Or is it that when I leave a negative feedback for him, no one will see it unless they have me added in their trust list?
That one!
The trust system is about the opinions you trust, meaning you trust their feedback.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
In other words, this isn't about who you trust for transactions, this is about whos opinions of others you trust?
So if I want to go to Pirateat40's account and leave a negative feedback, I'm allowed to, but since he doesnt' have me in his trust network, it won't show up in his profile at all when others see it?
Or is it that when I leave a negative feedback for him, no one will see it unless they have me added in their trust list?
So if I want to go to Pirateat40's account and leave a negative feedback, I'm allowed to, but since he doesnt' have me in his trust network, it won't show up in his profile at all when others see it?
Or is it that when I leave a negative feedback for him, no one will see it unless they have me added in their trust list?
The number is not all feedback, it's only from your trust network.
What's the point of having feedback + trust if you can hand choose who it comes from? Obviously scammers will not "trust" people they scammed, so any negative feedback will never happen. Is this the way it's being set up or did I miss something?
I thought it was you trust the feedback of people you trust (to whatever level you have it set, 1 for me). So if someone I trusted got scammed, or if someone who was trusted by someone I trusted got scammed, and left feedback then I'd see it a trusted scam report.
What are the odds that some one you trusted gets scammed? And that this system is the only way you hear about it?
The odds of that are pretty low. I'd say it's more useful for having a concentrated place to leave feedback, and the trust system to help filter out some of the useless spam.
That's kind of my point though, if you're only allowed to leave feedback *to* the people who trust you, and someone who doesn't trust you cannot have feedback left against them by you, then it seems pretty pointless. I hope that I'm misunderstanding this.
I think you're misunderstanding it...
Here's how I believe it works:
- I conduct a transaction with A
- Leave feedback on A after it's done
- If no one in your trust network trusts me, the feedback for A from me shows as untrusted
- If someone in your trust network trusts me, it'll show as trusted feedback for A
- Same thing for a feedback or scam report (I think?)
My only question is does the number calculate different for who's looking at it, or is it always the same?
I'm hoping it's based off of trust network feedback, not just all feedback (or at least part of it is).
Edit:
The number is not all feedback, it's only from your trust network.
Guess what I hoped is right.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
What's the point of having feedback + trust if you can hand choose who it comes from? Obviously scammers will not "trust" people they scammed, so any negative feedback will never happen. Is this the way it's being set up or did I miss something?
I thought it was you trust the feedback of people you trust (to whatever level you have it set, 1 for me). So if someone I trusted got scammed, or if someone who was trusted by someone I trusted got scammed, and left feedback then I'd see it a trusted scam report.
What are the odds that some one you trusted gets scammed? And that this system is the only way you hear about it?
The odds of that are pretty low. I'd say it's more useful for having a concentrated place to leave feedback, and the trust system to help filter out some of the useless spam.
That's kind of my point though, if you're only allowed to leave feedback *to* the people who trust you, and someone who doesn't trust you cannot have feedback left against them by you, then it seems pretty pointless. I hope that I'm misunderstanding this.
What's the point of having feedback + trust if you can hand choose who it comes from? Obviously scammers will not "trust" people they scammed, so any negative feedback will never happen. Is this the way it's being set up or did I miss something?
I thought it was you trust the feedback of people you trust (to whatever level you have it set, 1 for me). So if someone I trusted got scammed, or if someone who was trusted by someone I trusted got scammed, and left feedback then I'd see it a trusted scam report.
What are the odds that some one you trusted gets scammed? And that this system is the only way you hear about it?
The odds of that are pretty low. I'd say it's more useful for having a concentrated place to leave feedback, and the trust system to help filter out some of the useless spam.
What's the point of having feedback + trust if you can hand choose who it comes from? Obviously scammers will not "trust" people they scammed, so any negative feedback will never happen. Is this the way it's being set up or did I miss something?
I thought it was you trust the feedback of people you trust (to whatever level you have it set, 1 for me). So if someone I trusted got scammed, or if someone who was trusted by someone I trusted got scammed, and left feedback then I'd see it a trusted scam report.
Jump to: