Topic: [POLL] DT2 Status; how many net inclusions should it take? - page 3. (Read 873 times)

I'd like to see 5 inclusions or more personally. It has already been shown multiple times that quite a few members have no idea how the trust system works, but if multiple users include the same person it makes it more likely that person is a little more trustworthy.

Of course we would have to monitor the recent inclusions at 1st and make sure lowlifes aren't just adding their scammer buddies just to try n scam the system.

I think it should be Net 1 but with 2 inclusions minimum (i.e. like the current formula but bumped up by 1).

One inclusion, no exclusions - not in DT2.
Two inclusions, no exclusions - in DT2.
Two inclusions, one exclusion - still in DT2.
Two inclusions, two exclusions - no longer in DT2.

And so on.

This would reduce the chances of (lone) rogue "includers" and rogue "excluders" from messing with the system (self-scratching etc).


I don't like this asymmetry (you need to gain two inclusions to get in, but one asshole can kick you out). The current system is also asymmetric in the other direction (you need just one inclusion to get in, but only a gang of two assholes can kick you out). I prefer a balanced amount of assholery.

Correct.

That's how exclusions work.

No, on second thought she shouldn't be in DT, the same way as if Claire was excluded by 33 DT1 members and included only by one.

I said earlier that I wasn't sure but I think it would be better to count net inclusions.


What does that mean?


As you say that I understand that there are 94 users with 2 net positive inclusions, 61 with 3 net inclusions and so on. But continuing the progression with the negative numbers is not clear to me, as it could appear that there are 2723 users with one negative net inclusion (or one net exclusion), 284 with two net exclusions, and so on.

And there are not 2723 users in DT2.

Yes, but you're going to be disappointed:
That doesn't include users with zero posts.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  So, if Claire was excluded by 3 DT1 members, and included by only two she would remain on DT2?


I agree, there should be at least two DT1 inclusions at the very least.

---

It is customizable, as you very well know.


I'm not talking about my network, I'm talking about Default Trust.  You obviously know that the Trust System is customizable, or you wouldn't have customized your own.  This wouldn't change anything for those of us who've customized our trust lists, it would only have effect on those who have not customized there's, i.e. newbies and those who've yet to bother.

---

Here's an example of why I think this is worth discussing; I recently included a member into my trust list who's not very active but has been here for a significant amount of time, and seems to have a good head on his shoulders.  He came to my attention when he questioned me about a tag I left for a suspected scammer, suggesting that I may have jumped the gun.  His concern was admirable, and showed restraint.  I've had the same concerns in other situations.  After looking through the reviews he left for others, and reading some of his posts I decided I wanted to see his reviews in my custom trust system.

Since I'm on DT1, now that I've added him he's on DT2.  My actions have an affect of the trust lists of the majority of forum users.  I don't believe that I alone should have that power.  If some other DT1 member feels the same way about said user, then great, I'm not alone.

Also, if Bob believes he should have that power, that would make Bob specifically the type of person that I say shouldn't have it.

---

WTF?

---

@LoyceV, any way to tell how many members have a custom trust list?

I counted DT2-inclusions on Trust settings: there are 33 users with 0 (net) inclusions on DT2, and 308 with 1 inclusion.
Longer list (Update: this list includes DT1-members (when included by another DT1-member, they're on DT2 too)):
I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.

Perhaps this should be a customizable option for users to set.

I generally agree that in order for someone to be excluded from your trust network, there should be a strong consensus that the person should not be in your trust network, so a maximum of net 0 is appropriate for someone to be included (assuming one inclusion). I also don't think that having a limited number of "bad" people in your trust network is not the end of the world, especially if this person is not regularly sending trust ratings.

I realize that some may disagree with my above opinion, and they should be able to customize how their trust network propagates. I don't think this setting should propagate to others who include you on your trust list, so this particular setting would only apply to you.

I explained exactly the same. Right now only one DT1 member adds Claire to his list and it does not matter what equation it is, as long as the score is not negative, Claire is DT2 . It's x >=0.

No wonder we have so many DT2. I do not know what should be the standard score to be in the DT2 but the higher number is always reduce the number of spam in the system. I voted for 1 anyway.

It sounds to me that we were talking about this topic in some other meta thread about this. I'm sure LoyceV participated in the conversation, so I'm guessing he'll come around here to comment.

I'm not sure about subtracting exclusions. What I would be fine with is if there were two instead of one inclusion by DT1 to be DT2, I think it would reinforce confidence, and at the same time reduce the number of DT2 that I see it a bit long.

According to Bpip you have a net score of +4 inclusions.  Just to eliminate any confusion; for Claire to be on DT2 at least one DT1 member must have her included.  But, if one includes Claire and one excludes he, she will remain on DT2 even though her net inclusions is 0.

I am of the opinion that a net score of +2 should be required for inclusion to DT2.  So, for Claire to be included in DT2, at least two DT1 members would need to include her.  If one DT1 member excludes Claire, she would need a total of three inclusions to be on DT2.  I think this would reduce the Trust System spam that is so common today.  It would also reduce the potential for trust system cliques from developing.

What does DT2 mean?

We know how it works. If you list someone in your trust list, they are DT1 for you regardless of who have distrusted them. If they have someone on their trust list, they become DT2 by default (keep the default trust depth apart). So, your 1 inclusion is enough to make someone DT2 for you unless they are on your distrust list.

The same also applies here. But with net score as zero it doesn’t make sense but you need something in between +1 (DT2), -1(off DT2). I don't think this makes a lot of sense. You can't make someone DT status as neutral, something like neither shown nor hidden by default. I don’t know if I was able to make sense but that's the case here in my opinion.

I think having a positive score all it requires to gain DT2. Mathematically 0 is neither positive nor negative but I think in computer language it considers as positive. So when the score after at least an inclusion and exclusion from two DT1 executes, the algorithm considers it positive. The user gains DT2. Hopefully I get your explanation correct. But I will consider x >=1 not x>=0. Right now it must be x>=0.

Wait them to see it, you will get the data shortly 😉

I'm just curious about what you folks think.

Currently, only one DT1 inclusion is required for a member to be included in DT2 status.  In fact, a net score of 0 inclusions is all that is required, for example:  If Alice and Bob are both on DT1, and Alice includes Claire while Bob excludes Claire, Claire will be left with a net score of 0 DT1 inclusions, but that's all that is required for Claire to gain DT2 status.  In this example Claire's reviews will be displayed as "Trusted Feedback" if the user viewing the forum has the default Trust System settings.

Of course anyone can change their own Trust System settings, including the trusted depth of your included members' inclusions.  This is a good way to customize how you see "Trusted Feedback."  However, this is not something most newbies do when they first join the forum.  I don't know what percentage of members use custom trust lists, but I suspect it's on the low side of total active members.

I have mentioned my opinion about this in the past, but I'd rather not sway the voting by expressing it in this post.  I do encourage anyone with an opinion to share it here.