Topic: New reputation system integration on bitcointalk. Questions for people. - page 2. (Read 3461 times)
October 22, 2014, 03:54:55 AM
Anything has to be better than the current multi-flawed rep system...
October 22, 2014, 03:35:29 AM
Este, if this system is ever implemented here, I will leave the forum.
It will trigger a circle-jerk of gargantuan proportions as people race to accumulate Bitmarks.
Notwithstanding that, the implementation of such a system would signal the tacit endorsement of Bitmark by the forum's admins - it's not going to happen.
It will trigger a circle-jerk of gargantuan proportions as people race to accumulate Bitmarks.
Notwithstanding that, the implementation of such a system would signal the tacit endorsement of Bitmark by the forum's admins - it's not going to happen.
It would be a third party implementation. Not an implementation by Bitcointalk.
Same way we implement on twitter, youtube, facebook ect. Marking acts as a layer above the web and doesn't need the approval of anyone.
What about learning to trust people by talking to them and observe how they behave on the forum ?
The problem of a trust system is that people tend to believe it blindly.
Also when there is a trust system with points, you see plenty of attention-whores that want to collect points for the sake of it.
Marking doesn't exclude people interacting in a normal manner and deciding who you feel is a more valuable contributor. But it also adds another dimension where you can use crypto as an acknowledgement and incentive to show your appreciation of people who contribute in a postie way.
This isn't meant to be believed blindly. In fact it's meant to be questioned and give people data too look at and make their own decisions via the public marking ledger.
People who are doing things that aren't welcome should realize over time that they're not getting the marks they had hoped for if their content is view in a negative manner.
October 22, 2014, 03:33:43 AM
One of our developers with Bitmark(Leathan) has been working on a Bitcointalk marking integration. So far it works but it's still in the early stages of testing and not ready for full production yet. But I wanted to make a thread to ask people some of their opinions on how they think reputation should be calculated for this specific marking integration.
sounds like you're inventing a way to purchase influence on this web forum.
Not really. I'd like the algorithm to weight the amount of money less the higher it gets. Similar to how it works now on Poloniex. On Poloniex a marking of 10 can easily give more reputation than a marking of 1000 depending on who it's from and how often that person has marked them in the past.
If anything the monetary aspect of it can at least help limit the abuse somewhat due to the cost associated with it. It's very low cost, but even microtransactions can help limit spam type activities.
October 22, 2014, 03:30:16 AM
Este, if this system is ever implemented here, I will leave the forum.
It will trigger a circle-jerk of gargantuan proportions as people race to accumulate Bitmarks.
Notwithstanding that, the implementation of such a system would signal the tacit endorsement of Bitmark by the forum's admins - it's not going to happen.
It will trigger a circle-jerk of gargantuan proportions as people race to accumulate Bitmarks.
Notwithstanding that, the implementation of such a system would signal the tacit endorsement of Bitmark by the forum's admins - it's not going to happen.
October 22, 2014, 02:26:26 AM
What about learning to trust people by talking to them and observe how they behave on the forum ?
The problem of a trust system is that people tend to believe it blindly.
Also when there is a trust system with points, you see plenty of attention-whores that want to collect points for the sake of it.
October 21, 2014, 10:49:25 PM
forum dint even update defaulttrust
i thik btctalk is tagnant for rep
i thik btctalk is tagnant for rep
October 21, 2014, 03:25:02 PM
Mhhh... I don't know if this is a good idea.
Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.
As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.
ya.ya.yo!
Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.
As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.
ya.ya.yo!
I don't think it will be as distracting as you might think. Originally there won't be anyway to see someones reputation right away without going to the ledger site. That might change overtime if we develop a browser extension will could overlay each persons reputation.
The general idea is that it incentives good content and provides people will a small reward(that has the possibility of appreciating over time in adoption grows re:demand).
People won't be able to damage anyone's reputation as there is unlikely to be anyway to negatively affect it. People trying to abuse the system will hopefully be mitigated somewhat by the algorithm developed. But also remember that every marking is on a public ledger, and humans tend to be good at spotting things that don't look right. So people who attempt to abuse the system will likely be spotted I would think.
If someone makes a new account and is posting quality posts and good content I would expect that person to be marked accordingly and receive reputation.
People should still be reading threads as they do now I'd imagine. I don't know why people would read less than they do now.
Thanks for the comments.
bad idea because this is forum not room chat
I would think it would be more important than chat, as more substantive issues are normally discussed on forums. People can be rewarded for contributing thought provoking posts, or making people aware of important information.
So how can I now do this marking you talk?? I see on polo, but who to do on here
If it were active now it would be something like this:
+20 bitcoinbboyce great question
Not sure on how the exact syntax will be after testing. But something like that.
Ok so the syntax will be the same as the polo marking, this have ledger too? How to retrieve my marks from btt??
You will try btc-e twitter and Facebook too??
October 21, 2014, 03:19:46 PM
Mhhh... I don't know if this is a good idea.
Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.
As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.
ya.ya.yo!
Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.
As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.
ya.ya.yo!
I don't think it will be as distracting as you might think. Originally there won't be anyway to see someones reputation right away without going to the ledger site. That might change overtime if we develop a browser extension will could overlay each persons reputation.
The general idea is that it incentives good content and provides people will a small reward(that has the possibility of appreciating over time in adoption grows re:demand).
People won't be able to damage anyone's reputation as there is unlikely to be anyway to negatively affect it. People trying to abuse the system will hopefully be mitigated somewhat by the algorithm developed. But also remember that every marking is on a public ledger, and humans tend to be good at spotting things that don't look right. So people who attempt to abuse the system will likely be spotted I would think.
If someone makes a new account and is posting quality posts and good content I would expect that person to be marked accordingly and receive reputation.
People should still be reading threads as they do now I'd imagine. I don't know why people would read less than they do now.
Thanks for the comments.
bad idea because this is forum not room chat
I would think it would be more important than chat, as more substantive issues are normally discussed on forums. People can be rewarded for contributing thought provoking posts, or making people aware of important information.
So how can I now do this marking you talk?? I see on polo, but who to do on here
If it were active now it would be something like this:
+20 bitcoinbboyce great question
Not sure on how the exact syntax will be after testing. But something like that.
October 21, 2014, 03:10:52 PM
One of our developers with Bitmark(Leathan) has been working on a Bitcointalk marking integration. So far it works but it's still in the early stages of testing and not ready for full production yet. But I wanted to make a thread to ask people some of their opinions on how they think reputation should be calculated for this specific marking integration.
sounds like you're inventing a way to purchase influence on this web forum.
October 21, 2014, 03:08:13 PM
I like the idea. I know newb so no weight but whatever everyone has a right to speak their mind regardless of sign up date.
October 21, 2014, 03:07:41 PM
sounds like a merger of the old addon for this forum posted elsewhere with features such as topic ratings..
combined with a Reddcoin tipping scheme of sorts..
sorry not interested that is all i can say.
combined with a Reddcoin tipping scheme of sorts..
sorry not interested that is all i can say.
October 21, 2014, 01:58:27 PM
Mhhh... I don't know if this is a good idea.
Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.
As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.
ya.ya.yo!
Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.
As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.
ya.ya.yo!
I don't think it will be as distracting as you might think. Originally there won't be anyway to see someones reputation right away without going to the ledger site. That might change overtime if we develop a browser extension will could overlay each persons reputation.
The general idea is that it incentives good content and provides people will a small reward(that has the possibility of appreciating over time in adoption grows re:demand).
People won't be able to damage anyone's reputation as there is unlikely to be anyway to negatively affect it. People trying to abuse the system will hopefully be mitigated somewhat by the algorithm developed. But also remember that every marking is on a public ledger, and humans tend to be good at spotting things that don't look right. So people who attempt to abuse the system will likely be spotted I would think.
If someone makes a new account and is posting quality posts and good content I would expect that person to be marked accordingly and receive reputation.
People should still be reading threads as they do now I'd imagine. I don't know why people would read less than they do now.
Thanks for the comments.
bad idea because this is forum not room chat
I would think it would be more important than chat, as more substantive issues are normally discussed on forums. People can be rewarded for contributing thought provoking posts, or making people aware of important information.
So how can I now do this marking you talk?? I see on polo, but who to do on here
October 21, 2014, 01:55:15 PM
I am interested in the creation of an algorithm that will incentivize good behavior & positive contributions...Though I see the benefit of this algorithm more relative on a broader spectrum of Markings (outside of Bitcointalk).
I will open up a spreadsheet and get basic data of a sample...I will take a few standard deviations (SD) of the sample and then let you know what I come up.
I will open up a spreadsheet and get basic data of a sample...I will take a few standard deviations (SD) of the sample and then let you know what I come up.
October 21, 2014, 07:44:10 AM
Mhhh... I don't know if this is a good idea.
Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.
As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.
ya.ya.yo!
Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.
As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.
ya.ya.yo!
I don't think it will be as distracting as you might think. Originally there won't be anyway to see someones reputation right away without going to the ledger site. That might change overtime if we develop a browser extension will could overlay each persons reputation.
The general idea is that it incentives good content and provides people will a small reward(that has the possibility of appreciating over time in adoption grows re:demand).
People won't be able to damage anyone's reputation as there is unlikely to be anyway to negatively affect it. People trying to abuse the system will hopefully be mitigated somewhat by the algorithm developed. But also remember that every marking is on a public ledger, and humans tend to be good at spotting things that don't look right. So people who attempt to abuse the system will likely be spotted I would think.
If someone makes a new account and is posting quality posts and good content I would expect that person to be marked accordingly and receive reputation.
People should still be reading threads as they do now I'd imagine. I don't know why people would read less than they do now.
Thanks for the comments.
bad idea because this is forum not room chat
I would think it would be more important than chat, as more substantive issues are normally discussed on forums. People can be rewarded for contributing thought provoking posts, or making people aware of important information.
October 21, 2014, 05:39:14 AM
bad idea because this is forum not room chat
October 21, 2014, 05:36:22 AM
Mhhh... I don't know if this is a good idea.
Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.
As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.
ya.ya.yo!
Reputation makes sense when it comes to transactions, but for content only it doesn't provide more information than can be obtained by reading. Actually I think it's likely to lead to abuse, either to damage or improve a user's reputation. It will quickly establish biases and prejudice towards users as well because the importance of every post will be evaluated based on the user's reputation, giving less attention to the actual content and disregarding the fact that even low rep. / high rep. users might also post quality / crap content.
As a result it will make conversations in the forum more one-dimensional and superficial. People will read less and will pay less attention taking the reputation short route.
ya.ya.yo!
October 21, 2014, 04:52:25 AM
Wait, so the data are stored on the blockchain right ?
Where can I see my account "superresistant" with my data ?
What about abusing the system ?
The total amount of data will be stored on 'x' which will be the bot responsible for this specific marking integration. But the intention to hash the data at certain times and store that on the blockchain so the data can be verified if needed. And the raw marking data itself is also intended to be stored in multiple places so it's more distributed. Things like torrents, other local hosts, storj ect. And since the hash of data from specified periods should be verifiable on the blockchain, you'll be able to check if the data you get from some source matches the original source from comparing the hashes.
That part though is a few steps ahead though.
He's already gathered all 3xx,xxx Bitcointalk accounts so I'm sure he has you in the database already. Don't think there's an exposed way to look yourself up yet unless someone marked you though.
The abuse issues are what I hope to mitigate here by discussing ways we can implement an algorithm that helps with that.
For example, on Poloniex I think they have it so the marks you give to the same person over time are diminished significantly.
One I idea I'm thinking of here is that hero members and legendary members markings will have significantly more weight in the algo than say newbies or jr. members.
October 21, 2014, 04:14:38 AM
Wait, so the data are stored on the blockchain right ?
Where can I see my account "superresistant" with my data ?
What about abusing the system ?
October 21, 2014, 02:51:37 AM
One of our developers with Bitmark(Leathan) has been working on a Bitcointalk marking integration. So far it works but it's still in the early stages of testing and not ready for full production yet. But I wanted to make a thread to ask people some of their opinions on how they think reputation should be calculated for this specific marking integration.
Having a robust reputation system here could really benefit the forum I think. As we can see that it's not always easy to tell who's worth listening to and who's not. Working it out and getting it right will take a little bit of time but I feel it's a worthy endeavor so any input is greatly appreciated.
For reference, one mark is 0.001 BTM.
If you're not familiar with the marking concept you can check out a temporary FAQ we put up here or ask me anything in this thread here and I'll do my best to answer you.
When you reply to someones post, the syntax will probably be something like this:
+10 great post. i liked the part where you mentioned moolah was a scam!
give me my money back "Alex Green"!
In this case the person you're replying to would gain 10 marks and that data would be recorded on the local bitcointalk integration ledger. And eventually the data will be hashed and the hash stored on the Bitmark blockchain for reference in what we're tentatively calling the 'markchain'.
Here's an example of some real markings that have taken place: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9214321
An example of a live marking integration from Poloniex: https://www.poloniex.com/marking and https://www.poloniex.com/markingLedger
Keep in mind this is still in early testing mode so I wouldn't try to use anything unless you contact Leathan and ask him how you can assist in the testing.
The raw data for each user will be simply this:
Number of marks given
Number of marks received
And then a 'why' string that a user can specify
So as far an an algorithm to help give a good representation of how reputable people are and how they contribute to Bitcointalk, what things do you feel are important to focus on or give more weight to?
Do you feel the registration date of the person who marked someone is an important factor that should be given a lot of weight in the algorithm? If so, how much relative to other factors?
Do you feel the activity score of the person who marked someone is an important factor that should be given a lot of weight in the algorithm? If so, how much relative to other factors?
How much weight do you feel should be given to the raw amount of marks given(more marks given is more value received)? Keep in mind that in general reputation algorithms have ways to mitigate abuse such as someone just marking themselves on another account. But nothing is full proof and human judgement by viewing the data on the marking ledger is always the best option.
Do you feel that people should gain reputation for giving marks? Should their marking activity or frequency add reputation? What about the amount they give relative to others?
Should people who give out a lot of marks to people be considering something like 'marking whales'?
How do you feel about having leaderboards to give a good idea of people who contribute positively and have a good reputation? Should there be two leaderboards, one for reputation received and then one for the 'marking whales' who give out the most marks?
Feel free to be as specific as you want. If you have some ideas on how to calculate the reputation score feel free to do so. Each marking integration normally has different requirements and different communities. Poloniex for example created their own reputation algorithm when they started the beta of their marking integration.
Here's a link to the main Bitmark thread and Bitmark News if you're curious:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitmark-660544
http://bitmarknews.com/
Having a robust reputation system here could really benefit the forum I think. As we can see that it's not always easy to tell who's worth listening to and who's not. Working it out and getting it right will take a little bit of time but I feel it's a worthy endeavor so any input is greatly appreciated.
For reference, one mark is 0.001 BTM.
If you're not familiar with the marking concept you can check out a temporary FAQ we put up here or ask me anything in this thread here and I'll do my best to answer you.
When you reply to someones post, the syntax will probably be something like this:
Quote
Quote
someone else's post
+10 great post. i liked the part where you mentioned moolah was a scam!
give me my money back "Alex Green"!
In this case the person you're replying to would gain 10 marks and that data would be recorded on the local bitcointalk integration ledger. And eventually the data will be hashed and the hash stored on the Bitmark blockchain for reference in what we're tentatively calling the 'markchain'.
Here's an example of some real markings that have taken place: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9214321
An example of a live marking integration from Poloniex: https://www.poloniex.com/marking and https://www.poloniex.com/markingLedger
Keep in mind this is still in early testing mode so I wouldn't try to use anything unless you contact Leathan and ask him how you can assist in the testing.
The raw data for each user will be simply this:
Number of marks given
Number of marks received
And then a 'why' string that a user can specify
So as far an an algorithm to help give a good representation of how reputable people are and how they contribute to Bitcointalk, what things do you feel are important to focus on or give more weight to?
Do you feel the registration date of the person who marked someone is an important factor that should be given a lot of weight in the algorithm? If so, how much relative to other factors?
Do you feel the activity score of the person who marked someone is an important factor that should be given a lot of weight in the algorithm? If so, how much relative to other factors?
How much weight do you feel should be given to the raw amount of marks given(more marks given is more value received)? Keep in mind that in general reputation algorithms have ways to mitigate abuse such as someone just marking themselves on another account. But nothing is full proof and human judgement by viewing the data on the marking ledger is always the best option.
Do you feel that people should gain reputation for giving marks? Should their marking activity or frequency add reputation? What about the amount they give relative to others?
Should people who give out a lot of marks to people be considering something like 'marking whales'?
How do you feel about having leaderboards to give a good idea of people who contribute positively and have a good reputation? Should there be two leaderboards, one for reputation received and then one for the 'marking whales' who give out the most marks?
Feel free to be as specific as you want. If you have some ideas on how to calculate the reputation score feel free to do so. Each marking integration normally has different requirements and different communities. Poloniex for example created their own reputation algorithm when they started the beta of their marking integration.
Here's a link to the main Bitmark thread and Bitmark News if you're curious:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitmark-660544
http://bitmarknews.com/
Jump to: