Minor trust score algorithm change | Bitcointalksearch.org

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: CrackedLogic on June 22, 2015, 08:14:59 AM

-snip-
Why is Luke-Jr sitting at a -1 {...}

The answer was in first page.

Quote from: theymos on May 20, 2015, 01:57:19 PM

-snip-

Quote from: dogie on May 20, 2015, 01:41:39 PM

Doesn't that mean if someone receives a positive and a negative rating, they'll go negative if the negative is newer?

If someone has 1 positive and 1 negative, then the time doesn't matter. They'll have a score of -1.

Quote from: mmmaybe on June 27, 2015, 07:56:04 PM

Quote from: redsn0w on May 20, 2015, 01:51:01 PM

Quote from: peligro on May 20, 2015, 01:48:24 PM

There are some useful changes, but the first score needs to be rescaled. It varies too much if one trust is added or removed. Makes anyone in Default trust much more powerful and those outside it more worthless.

Muhammed Zakir's rating shows as ???

Yes:

[ img]https://i.imgur.com/VZfITNr.png[/img]

It is a bug.... theymos can surely fix it.

I am not surprised of a bug in the trust scores, the whole system is a bug and hardly usable Wink

Trust spam. Just below that post, that doubt was cleared.

Quote from: master-P on June 27, 2015, 08:30:01 PM

I thought I read somewhere that the "???" trust score basically means the system is unable to help you determine a score so it is up to you to decide whether the user is trustworthy or not. On my end Muhammed Zakir's trusted ratings are all positive and he has a trust score of 9 currently, so I guess it also depends on who you have on your own trust list as it affects other people's trust scores. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

Quote from: theymos on May 20, 2015, 01:57:19 PM

??? is a valid score in the new algorithm.

Quote from: dogie on May 20, 2015, 01:41:39 PM

Doesn't that mean if someone receives a positive and a negative rating, they'll go negative if the negative is newer?

If someone has 1 positive and 1 negative, then the time doesn't matter. They'll have a score of -1.

Examples:
Old -> New
+ - : -1
- + : -1
+ + - : ???
+ - + : 0
- + + : 1
+ + + : >=3
- - + : -3
+ - - : -3
- - - : -8

-snip-

master-P

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1001

https://keybase.io/masterp FREE Escrow Service

I thought I read somewhere that the "???" trust score basically means the system is unable to help you determine a score so it is up to you to decide whether the user is trustworthy or not. On my end Muhammed Zakir's trusted ratings are all positive and he has a trust score of 9 currently, so I guess it also depends on who you have on your own trust list as it affects other people's trust scores. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

mmmaybe

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: redsn0w on May 20, 2015, 01:51:01 PM

Quote from: peligro on May 20, 2015, 01:48:24 PM

There are some useful changes, but the first score needs to be rescaled. It varies too much if one trust is added or removed. Makes anyone in Default trust much more powerful and those outside it more worthless.

Muhammed Zakir's rating shows as ???

Yes:

It is a bug.... theymos can surely fix it.

I am not surprised of a bug in the trust scores, the whole system is a bug and hardly usable Wink

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: dogie on June 22, 2015, 08:43:37 AM

Quote from: CrackedLogic on June 22, 2015, 08:14:59 AM

TECSHARE appears green to me with a score of 124 in the green.

What I don't understand is this:

Why is Luke-Jr sitting at a -1 and cooldgamer sitting at "? ? ?".
Cooldgamer is in my trust list and not default trust, would this have a potential effect?

[According to his particular trust list:]
The consensus on that situation is that Luke is considered untrustworthy with -1/+1. he has no sigifnicaint history and recent evidence of things going wrong, and hence is red with a warning. With cooldgamer the system can't implicitly determine if he is a scammer or not, due to his established positive history, hence Huh

= go read the trust ratings.

Is "+50 risked amount = additional count" still in trust algorithm? If yes, do you think it has to do anything with Luke-Jr's trust score?

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: CrackedLogic on June 22, 2015, 08:14:59 AM

TECSHARE appears green to me with a score of 124 in the green.

What I don't understand is this:

Why is Luke-Jr sitting at a -1 and cooldgamer sitting at "? ? ?".
Cooldgamer is in my trust list and not default trust, would this have a potential effect?

[According to his particular trust list:]
The consensus on that situation is that Luke is considered untrustworthy with -1/+1. he has no sigifnicaint history and recent evidence of things going wrong, and hence is red with a warning. With cooldgamer the system can't implicitly determine if he is a scammer or not, due to his established positive history, hence Huh

= go read the trust ratings.

CrackedLogic

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

TECSHARE appears green to me with a score of 124 in the green.

What I don't understand is this:

Why is Luke-Jr sitting at a -1 and cooldgamer sitting at "? ? ?".
Cooldgamer is in my trust list and not default trust, would this have a potential effect?

Hippie Tech

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1001

All cryptos are FIAT digital currency. Do not use.

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 21, 2015, 02:07:55 AM

Quote from: Hippie Tech on June 21, 2015, 01:25:31 AM

Where did you get your info on ??? ?

In my case, re-doing bobsag3's negative trust was not necessary and -ck's positive entry, posted 4 months later, had no effect.

Quote from: Quickseller on June 21, 2015, 01:39:44 AM

That is not true. The first negative rating will cause the previous positive ratings to be disregarded if the net trust score would be positive if all positive trust ratings were to be taken into consideration. After the first negative rating, subsequent negative ratings will cause the negative trust score to increase by a factor of an exponent of 2. Any positive trust ratings after the first negative rating will count as normal.

You are right. Stupid mistake of mine. Thanks for correcting!

Quote from: Hippie Tech on June 21, 2015, 01:40:33 AM

For those who may be interested, here is what changing the depth level can do ..

Default trust depth level 0 level 1 level 2
[ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv0.jpg[/img] [ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv1.jpg[/img] [ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv2.jpg[/img]

level 3 level 4
[ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv2.jpg[/img] [ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv4.jpg[/img]

Others won't see in the way you see unless they add you to their trust list. When you view it, your negative feedback is seen as trusted and it affects trust rating but not for us(who haven't added you).

That part is obvious. What isn't is, what is actually causing the question marks to appear.

How do those user's appear to you ?

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: Hippie Tech on June 21, 2015, 01:25:31 AM

Where did you get your info on ??? ?

In my case, re-doing bobsag3's negative trust was not necessary and -ck's positive entry, posted 4 months later, had no effect.

Quote from: Quickseller on June 21, 2015, 01:39:44 AM

That is not true. The first negative rating will cause the previous positive ratings to be disregarded if the net trust score would be positive if all positive trust ratings were to be taken into consideration. After the first negative rating, subsequent negative ratings will cause the negative trust score to increase by a factor of an exponent of 2. Any positive trust ratings after the first negative rating will count as normal.

You are right. Stupid mistake of mine. Thanks for correcting!

Quote from: Hippie Tech on June 21, 2015, 01:40:33 AM

For those who may be interested, here is what changing the depth level can do ..

Default trust depth level 0 level 1 level 2
[ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv0.jpg[/img] [ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv1.jpg[/img] [ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv2.jpg[/img]

level 3 level 4
[ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv2.jpg[/img] [ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv4.jpg[/img]

Others won't see in the way you see unless they add you to their trust list. When you view it, your negative feedback is seen as trusted and it affects trust rating but not for us(who haven't added you).

Hippie Tech

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1001

All cryptos are FIAT digital currency. Do not use.

For those who may be interested, here is what changing the depth level can do ..

Default trust depth level 0 level 1 level 2

level 3 level 4

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 20, 2015, 11:50:58 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

~~That is not true.~~ The red question marks are a direct result of the new tally system and not because of any recent editing and/or manipulation.

Lets use bobsag3 aka. borito4 aka. Matt Carsen, who happens to be on the original scammers list and someone you, TECHSHARE, trust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=144143

As you can see, the 'trusted' negative rep was posted more than a year ago.

TBH I didn't understand what you said.

If the latest trusted feedback is negative, user's trust rating will show as ???. So I was asking about others' opinions on re-adding negative feedback to make that happen.

That is not true. The first negative rating will cause the previous positive ratings to be disregarded if the net trust score would be positive if all positive trust ratings were to be taken into consideration. After the first negative rating, subsequent negative ratings will cause the negative trust score to increase by a factor of an exponent of 2. Any positive trust ratings after the first negative rating will count as normal.

Hippie Tech

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1001

All cryptos are FIAT digital currency. Do not use.

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 20, 2015, 11:50:58 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

~~That is not true.~~ The red question marks are a direct result of the new tally system and not because of any recent editing and/or manipulation.

Lets use bobsag3 aka. borito4 aka. Matt Carsen, who happens to be on the original scammers list and someone you, TECHSHARE, trust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=144143

As you can see, the 'trusted' negative rep was posted more than a year ago.

TBH I didn't understand what you said.

If the latest trusted feedback is negative, user's trust rating will show as ???. So I was asking about others' opinions on re-adding negative feedback to make that happen.

Where did you get your info on ??? ?

In my case, re-doing bobsag3's negative trust was not necessary and -ck's positive entry, posted 4 months later, had no effect.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: ?? on ??

~~That is not true.~~ The red question marks are a direct result of the new tally system and not because of any recent editing and/or manipulation.

Lets use bobsag3 aka. borito4 aka. Matt Carsen, who happens to be on the original scammers list and someone you, TECHSHARE, trust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=144143

As you can see, the 'trusted' negative rep was posted more than a year ago.

TBH I didn't understand what you said.

If the latest trusted feedback is negative, user's trust rating will show as ???. So I was asking about others' opinions on re-adding negative feedback to make that happen.

Hippie Tech

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1001

All cryptos are FIAT digital currency. Do not use.

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 20, 2015, 11:29:25 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 20, 2015, 05:11:03 AM

I have also had people remove a rating before and replace it after I left them a negative, basically making it appear as if I negative rated them first after I had made a complaint about it. As a result the only proof I have of the order of events is a predated post describing the rating.

~~That is not true.~~ The red question marks are a direct result of the new tally system and not because of any recent editing and/or manipulation.

Lets use bobsag3 aka. borito4 aka. Matt Carsen, who happens to be on the original scammers list and someone you, TECHSHARE, trust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=144143

As you can see, the 'trusted' negative rep was posted more than a year ago.

How do you even know what incident I am referring to? That might help if you want to argue what I said was not true. I don't trust bobsag3, I left a trust rating for him because we transacted. Learn the difference. Also, instead of stalking me perhaps you should get treatment for your psychological issues.

My bad. Your oddly worded quote had me somewhat confused. That statement should have been directed at Muhammed.

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 08, 2015, 06:15:46 AM

What is your opinion about re-adding *negative* trust feedback so that user's m trust rating show as ????

And I am not stalking you. This thread was added to my watchlist weeks ago.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 20, 2015, 05:11:03 AM

I have also had people remove a rating before and replace it after I left them a negative, basically making it appear as if I negative rated them first after I had made a complaint about it. As a result the only proof I have of the order of events is a predated post describing the rating.

That is not true. The red question marks are a direct result of the new tally system and not because of any recent editing and/or manipulation.

Lets use bobsag3 aka. borito4 aka. Matt Carsen, who happens to be on the original scammers list and someone you, TECHSHARE, trust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=144143

As you can see, the 'trusted' negative rep was posted more than a year ago.

How do you even know what incident I am referring to? That might help if you want to argue what I said was not true. I don't trust bobsag3, I left a trust rating for him because we transacted. Learn the difference. Also, instead of stalking me perhaps you should get treatment for your psychological issues.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: dogie on June 19, 2015, 07:47:10 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 19, 2015, 07:09:48 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 08, 2015, 06:15:46 AM

What is your opinion about re-adding *negative* trust feedback so that user's m trust rating show as ????

It is only a matter of time before this is exploited regularly. This is also a good reason to start logging trust rating changes.

Regardless of this particular situation, I do think trust ratings should be logged. Because they sit behind a login screen its hard to get a neutral archiver to record something, so someone could delete a rating and go "what rating". It'd be hard to prove to a court that that rating did exist without a neutral archive or server log.

I have also had people remove a rating before and replace it after I left them a negative, basically making it appear as if I negative rated them first after I had made a complaint about it. As a result the only proof I have of the order of events is a predated post describing the rating.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 19, 2015, 07:09:48 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 08, 2015, 06:15:46 AM

What is your opinion about re-adding *negative* trust feedback so that user's m trust rating show as ????

It is only a matter of time before this is exploited regularly. This is also a good reason to start logging trust rating changes.

Regardless of this particular situation, I do think trust ratings should be logged. Because they sit behind a login screen its hard to get a neutral archiver to record something, so someone could delete a rating and go "what rating". It'd be hard to prove to a court that that rating did exist without a neutral archive or server log.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on June 08, 2015, 06:15:46 AM

What is your opinion about re-adding *negative* trust feedback so that user's m trust rating show as ????

It is only a matter of time before this is exploited regularly. This is also a good reason to start logging trust rating changes.

nwfella

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1000

Well hello there!

Quote from: guitarplinker on June 19, 2015, 06:10:36 PM

Quote from: nwfella on June 19, 2015, 03:41:09 PM

Interesting. Since this change has gone into effect my trust score dropped from +2 to 0 apparently.

The scoring changes shouldn't have done that. Chances are the people who left that trust were removed from the default trust list instead. I know some level ones removed members from their lists a few weeks back.

Not entirely sure how I would check that but at least it appears as though I can still access the positive feedback left for me even if it isn't reflected in my score. Not a big deal honestly was just curious. I doubt the individuals that left me positive feedback where removed from the Defaulttrust list. I'll have to take a closer look at that a bit later to see what I can find.

Thanks for the reply though

guitarplinker

legendary

Activity: 1694

Merit: 1024

Quote from: nwfella on June 19, 2015, 03:41:09 PM

Interesting. Since this change has gone into effect my trust score dropped from +2 to 0 apparently.

The scoring changes shouldn't have done that. Chances are the people who left that trust were removed from the default trust list instead. I know some level ones removed members from their lists a few weeks back.

nwfella

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1000

Well hello there!

Interesting. Since this change has gone into effect my trust score dropped from +2 to 0 apparently.

Topic: Minor trust score algorithm change (Read 7377 times)