I would say the most important difference between neutral and red feedback is reference and proof.
To accuse someone of being distrustful, based only on conjecture, is not enough for a red tag. it is a kind of condemnation based on personal feelings, and it can often be deceiving. I believe that is one of the reasons why we have a neutral evaluation. otherwise it would be quite sufficient to have the possibility only negative or positive feedback.
Topic: Neutral feedback of negative spirit - page 2. (Read 371 times)
Also if a person tends to write a lot of these feedbacks, I think we would be in a borderline case to analyze.
Such cases can of course be analyzed. And that can only be done; on a case by case basis.I can't give a general opinion on whether or not an action would fall under abuse of the trust system without considering the words used in the feedback as well as the evidence provided, if any. Such an action would throw lots of feedback ratings into a gray area and some users would not know if they are properly using the neutral tag option.
write a neutral color feedback saying this: "this person has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not trustworthy, I wouldn't trust him with a penny". I believe that such a feedback, although neutral in color, should be considered as if it were red for the purpose of analyzing whether it is an abuse of the trust system.
I don't agree, sorry. But I'm open to getting convinced (with good arguments) if I'm wrong.
I will give another (maybe unlikely, I don't know) example: user1 is DT (I emphasize this because most don't care at all about non-DT feedback). For some reasons he decides he doesn't trust user2, but he doesn't have good enough proof for his decision. A neutral, but bad review, can make careful enough users double check everything, without triggering drama and the need of explaining his feedback.
How about this? Is it an abuse, or will the red feedback be an abuse? Imho it's greatly debatable, hence I would not consider such a case an abuse.
I will add though that in my case the wording would not so hard like "has repeatedly demonstrated that"; your case could ask for proof, hence actual negative; my example would be a tad "softer".
You just said that negative tags can look like abuse unless they are backed by solid evidence. But if a person expresses this in a neutral review, then I believe that this only speaks of a warning at the discretion of the rest of the users. In other words, it is a personal relationship.
Therefore, in my opinion, there is a neutral review, It speaks of a not entirely firm conviction in which one could condemn the user.
But on the other hand, what can a neutral review say if you consider some reviews to be more negative than positive? In the same way, a positive review will say that you seem to trust the user, but not so much that the review is green.
Therefore, in my opinion, there is a neutral review, It speaks of a not entirely firm conviction in which one could condemn the user.
But on the other hand, what can a neutral review say if you consider some reviews to be more negative than positive? In the same way, a positive review will say that you seem to trust the user, but not so much that the review is green.
As I once said, I am opening this thread to comment on this borderline case of the trust system.
In the forum we can see several cases of neutral tag in terms of color, but that are negative in terms of written feeback.
The thing is that many times we see these neutral tags that are not written in red because if it is done this way, it could be considered by the community as an abuse of the trust system, and writing it in neutral prevents this.
IHowever, think in some cases it should also be considered abuse of the trust system. I will give an exaggerated example: I write a neutral color feedback saying this: "this person has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not trustworthy, I wouldn't trust him with a penny". I believe that such a feedback, although neutral in color, should be considered as if it were red for the purpose of analyzing whether it is an abuse of the trust system.
Also if a person tends to write a lot of these feedbacks, I think we would be in a borderline case to analyze.
What do you think about this? Experiences? Thoughts?
In the forum we can see several cases of neutral tag in terms of color, but that are negative in terms of written feeback.
The thing is that many times we see these neutral tags that are not written in red because if it is done this way, it could be considered by the community as an abuse of the trust system, and writing it in neutral prevents this.
IHowever, think in some cases it should also be considered abuse of the trust system. I will give an exaggerated example: I write a neutral color feedback saying this: "this person has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not trustworthy, I wouldn't trust him with a penny". I believe that such a feedback, although neutral in color, should be considered as if it were red for the purpose of analyzing whether it is an abuse of the trust system.
Also if a person tends to write a lot of these feedbacks, I think we would be in a borderline case to analyze.
What do you think about this? Experiences? Thoughts?
Jump to: