Topic: [Poll] How do you choose Trust List inclusions? (Read 333 times)

I should have included more info on how I personally add the trust list.

But this is not the only way of choosing people to be included in my trust list. I have traded with more than the above mentioned users, but haven't included everyone in my trust list and I have also included traders whom I haven't traded with too. You are also quite true with the positive ratings and trust list. Both does differ and I am very much aware of that.

There are 2 reasons to include this criteria in my trust list. One is that, they have proven to be very trustworthy over a larger time period [>3yrs] and another is that, they have a very good judgement in finding out the scammers.

This is a poor reason to be picking an inclusion to your trust list. Instead, this should be a reason for leaving someone a positive rating.

A positive ratings says "I would trust this person with my money" or "I think this person is unlikely to scam anyone". A trust list inclusion says "I trust this person's judgement of other people". The two are quite different. Sure, there is going to be some overlap in users who you have both traded with and trust their judgement, but including someone in your trust list only because you have traded with them is the wrong way to go. Indeed, much of the drama surrounding the new DT1 selection process is due to new DT1 members having trust lists which include everyone they have traded with, and therefore artificially boosting their own trust score.

I don't indulge myself with trust based discussions quite often, but this seems to be a little different.

The names in my trust list is based upon 2 options

[1] Someone with whom I can trust my money with.

No, trust doesn't come upon based on their course of judgement [at least I am based on this]. If a person was to judge correctly, and if they prove to be a scammer in future your trust ratings are wasted by trusting a scammer.

Pretty much this. I included Lauda based on their sense of judgement over the time frame, their trades and escrow handling in forum and more importantly to see their trust ratings in a user's profile.

Here are my criteria for selecting members in my trust list

OgNasty - Forum fund holder

hilariousandco - Their sense of judgement and their trades in forum has proven to be trustworthy

suchmoon - Trustworthy behaviour and good sense of judgement

achow101 - Bitcoin Developer and of course you should trust him with your bitcoins.

minerjones,Bitcoin Penny, chronicsky,krogothmanhattan - Traded with them quite a few times and I would trust everyone with my money.

LoyceV - Trustworthy behaviour and has conducted many non signature-campaigns which involves bitcoin.

Personally I add someone when I think his judgment is enough trustworthy to me. And obviously feedback is one of important weapon to judge the judgment. Most of user on my custom trust list are scam buster. I think scammer should get negative feedback as soon as possible, so scam buster should not wait for another DT when they will tag. Before current system I were waited when DT's will tag scammer after open accusation. That's why I realised that well known scam buster should be on DT network  as well. However, there is more peoples on my trust list even they are not scam buster. Means I also trust their judgment.

Just for the record, these are the 3 I selected and think are important:

-Someone who demonstrates good judgement of character
-Someone who's historically demonstrated trustworthy behavior
-Some who leaves accurate negative reviews (scam-buster)

The first two are pretty subjective whereas the third is a bit more objective.

I would circumstantially consider the "friends and family" option if they are friends or family I consider to be trustworthy and have a good judgment of character. There's a few people I would add to my list had they not left so many positive or negative feedbacks I don't agree with (don't find to be a fitting use of the trust system).

I have voted this 3 reasons are better from others. And this 3 is the most valuable reason of choosing Trust list.
And want to add two line together to make another complete reason.

You make good points, but by selecting the "Accurate negative reviews" doesn't necessarily exclude those who leave accurate positive or neutral reviews.  Accurate support of flags is also a good metric, I'm glad you brought that up.

Well my list consists of some older members who at the time showed all or enough of these traits. Good judgement, Trustworthy behavior, accurate feedback. The last one was tricky as well as it has caused me to leave out a few members who would otherwise be on my list, as well as excluding people I had no interactions with, because of people I wanted included.
I didn't select the "Accurate negative reviews, imo it should just be accurate feedback in general not just negatives. This means willing to give neutrals, instead of positive or negative and the ability to apply it in a manner that I agree with.
A good metric that I keep forgetting and was pointed out to me is also their Flag support, or objection.
My selected options from the pole:

I agree, and support this approach.


I added options that I would not consider, but I suspect others may.  I wanted to give others the opportunity to answer in a way that reflects their approach to trust-list inclusions.

Edited my answer from the other thread for clarity, and to avoid plagiarizing myself.

Re-posting from the other thread, please don't ban me for plagiarism.

I think I've said it about 300 times already but I'm basically including (or excluding) people whose ratings I want to see (or not) in my trust network. If I had to choose from your list I think it would be mostly these reasons:


I certainly don't consider campaign spam or merits or anything of the sort. I'm kinda worried how you even came up with some of those

This thread has convinced me to do some research and customize my trust list after relying on the default trust list for as long as I have been here. This will probably take a long time to sort of think up though as a I think there is a lot to consider when designing your trust list. I'm in disagreement with a lot of the options in the poll and I would like to explain why. I have selected the "something else" option.


This option makes sense at a face value right? because you trust them due to the successful trade that you guys have had. But that is not what the custom trust list is for. You should not be including members that you have trading with instead your trust list should be including people who leave trust ratings that you agree on and are valid.

This option actually annoys me because if you are including campaign managers on your list for excluding spammers then thats ridiculous. This should not be something that someone is praised for but expected to do. Campaign managers should be one of the highest reporters on the forum in my opinion because there's so many spammers in their campaigns and they are required to review every post. Why not report the post too?

Again this is ridiculous. Just because someone is releasing money that they are being PAID FOR does not benefit the forum by including them in your trust list and probably is not going to benefit you. Unless you think that including them in your trust list will get you into their campaign. You can leave a rating if you would like because you see them being trustworthy and actually paying but not include them in your trust list.

If this means judgement of other members on the forum then I would agree with including them in your trust list if they are actively leaving trust ratings and not just voicing their concerns. We need people with good judgement of character who are actively leaving ratings on the forum.


Kind of agree although I think a positive rating would be better here. If they are again leaving ratings which are accurate then I would agree that this option is a valid reason.


Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. This is THE person you want to include because they are not only actively making accurate ratings they are actively scam busting which means they are probably looking into each case in incredible depth.

Just no.


Merit has no relation with trust what so ever.


This option makes sense only if they are actively leaving trust ratings which are accurate in the local board.



Overall it all boils down to whether they are leaving good accurate trust ratings that you trust to be accurate. If they are not then its probably a better idea to show your appreciation or thoughts via a neutral or positive rating rather than including them on your trust list.

I'm re-posting this because someone pointed out that I missed the check-box to allow the changing of your vote.  Sorry for botching it up.  The other thread is locked and voting disabled.  If you don't mind, please resubmit your votes here.

---

I'm curious about the forum consensus on this issue.  I'm only interested in your inclusions at the moment, therefor the poll is limited to who you might include and why.  If you would like to discuss your exclusions as well, feel free to do so.  No local rules, but I ask that we keep the discussion about the trust system in general, and not about any one individual.  Please stay on topic.

Obviously I have my criteria, which I recently illustrated in a post title My musings about the trust network.  I'm not asking for advice, I'm just curious how most of the fine folks on this forum go about assembling their inclusion list.  There are no right or wrong answers, you won't be judged by me for your response, there's only my curiosity.

You can choose as many or as few options as you like, and you can even change your vote later if you wish.  Because I understand that even the most stubborn among us can have our minds changed if we're being honest with ourselves and rational in our approach.

Thanks for taking the time to satisfy my curiosity.