Topic: Random use of positive (green) trust (Read 578 times)

I have got same feeling for SFR10 on my mind mate. Its not a matter of negative or positive feedback. Its a matter of being little extra careful about scammers and saving community members from their fraudulent activities. I believe you want the same thing.


Yeah obviously we were newbies and we are not taking their rank slightly. Today's newbies are our forum's future and we should give them little more extra time to build their own. Having green trust at the very beginning of their journey wouldn't be a great thing IMO.

As a forum member i think what you achieved today after spending a quality time and hardwork is the reward for your best work and contribution. So why don't we let others to get it by the same way.

Right decision, due to recent changes if you leave positive feedback's then it will green instantly. Seems you have changed lot of feedback's which is appropriate in my opinions. Because some corrupted user might buy code for positive feedback's and it's really not very good think for community ( although you have full right about your feedback's). However, I appreciate your decision and it was real time (imo).

When someone gets negative feedback then only the tagged user moans (I think only once I saw and exception, if I am not wrong then Loyce stood up against a red tag) but when someone gets positive trust then it seem other people moan.

Don't get me wrong TalkStar. SFR10 is a long term member and actively treading (selling service) from long time. When he is leaving a feedback he knows the deal.

Marketplace trust was created with feedback system in mind when someone trade in the forum (just like ebay). But later it turned out that it's useful to warn people too (when a DT leave a red feedback), so community started to practice it. When they spot a user is harmful and can scam other users then they started to use the tag system. But this does not mean that we will have to think very very hard before leaving a positive feedback to someone who showed great gesture and gentlemen-ship in a trade.

Leaving feedback is a personal wish. And let's respect it. If anyone leave a positive feedback then accept it. Finding issue in everything is not good at all.

This is double standard. Just because someone is very new to the forum does not always mean you keep policing them. Don't forget you, I and others were newbie too once.

Thanks everyone who shared their valuable opinion here. After seeing many of ours comment one thing came forward that giving trust to someone mainly depends on senders own decision. I am also agree with that but i believe we should take little more extra time before getting the decision to give someone positive feedback or neutral. Obviously green trust bear much weight than neutral and that's the reason why we should use it properly.

In my opinion there's always been a difference between a newbie and a old member. In this area member's activity always play a big role. At least we shouldn't measure them in same scale. If we mix up both of the feedback's value in a common basket then it can bring many unwanted issues in the near future.

Yeah its true that anyone can committing scam from any situation and no one can't predict it surely. I am not telling that green trusted member can't be a scammer in the future but we can redeem the chances by the appropriate use of trust system. Scammers are always trying to discover new ways and ideas to steal people's fund and their main weapon is to build trust throughout the whole community. So they can take the opportunity to be a green trusted member by hiring services, taking small amount of loans or by any kind transaction related activities. It will not be a wise thing to let them be a positive feedback holder so easily. 

Thank you "TalkStar" for creating this thread.

---

Thank you for pointing this out, I did somehow miss that part ^{[regardless of my inactivity, apart from bumping my thread every once in a while]}...
- My bad ^[SMH].
- Based on recent changes, I have to change my feedback to a neutral one ^{[will do it in a few minutes]}:

• Same goes for all other ratings of similar kind, involving anyone that I can't vouch for personally ^{[will do this within the next few days]}.

---

Thanks to those that expressed their thoughts on this matter, I appreciate it

Although I haven't make any deal with (except edit a free avatar) but as far as I know SFR10 is a decent and polite user of this forum. He is not much bothering current trust system. But unfortunately I am not agree with his all feedback's especially those has been left just for buy signature code. A neutral feedback's would be appropriate in my opinions.

Users are very clever, they would those SFR10 for create signature code in order to get green trust. Green trust should not make very cheap by the way.

It's appropriate that way but you can't oblige anyone putting a reference on the trust as that trust will reflect without the reference.
Actually, I also see popular DT members in the forum which does not add reference so it's kinda acceptable.

Like these....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=369212
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=881377

How do you identify if a user wouldn't scam, what are the requirements for that? A user per say can carry out multiple trade with a particular users and it results to him/her earning his trust but still can turn out to be a scammer by scamming other forum users. We have experience such case in the past with those we tagged "most trusted" per say.

Since my positive rating is technically vouching for that user not to be a scammer, apart from a successful trade (like the sending above have indicated) what other requirements should deem one to be qualified to recieved such feedback.

It's nowhere near random. The importance of using the reference portion of feedbacks is one way to prove that.

The important thing when giving feedback, in my opinion, is the reference. It's like in a case study or a thesis that you are writing. What is your basis on giving that result/feedback with that? It's necessary to involve those kinds of references because it's to understand somewhat the whole picture behind everything. I hope it's the case for everyone doing it.

It wouldn't be bad to give feedback if it really happened. The best situation is that it's verifiable by anyone looking at the profile.

The rating is appropriate IMO, SFR10 sent a positive to WolfBet as he got paid for the service.
When there's a transaction of money, I think it's more appropriate than someone giving positive trust with just simply saying " I trust this person", it's not specific, at least this one we can see the reference.

Its happening though,I don't want to point out any profiles personally as well.You can visit the lending section too see how many of them got Positive just for paid non collateral loan and for earlier payment.

DT members are not doing it for trust farming but it can be used for it without the person who is leaving the feedback.

I think the rating is an inappropriate use of the trust system unless there is additional information not in the rating comment that I am unaware of. When you leave a positive rating, you are vouching the person will not scam.

The above is a recent change to how positive trust is described, and I suspect SFR10 probably doesn't understand the implications of his positive rating. I think it would be best for SFR10 to remove his positive rating, or clarify why he believes WolfBet will not scam.

If this is true, DT must look into this. This can be considered as trust farm as well which will mislead forum members to a big loss. Someone paying loan earlier doesn't reflect trustworthiness. Moreover, recent change in feedback criteria is somwhat different than leaving positive feedbacn for paying loan earlier.

But this feedback can be far better when compared to the DT members leaving positive feedback for paying the loan amount couple of days earlier.

Which more looks like a traded feedback IMO.

I've checked the feedback and I don't see anything wrong on it, a transaction occurs and both parties satisfy the requirement to get a trust, it's not about the rank, there are high-rank members that don't deserve positive trust, and besides it's up to the giver on how he is educated on the trust system.

My honest opinion, that feedback is quite inaccurate. Leaving feedback's for newbie accounts with just one mini deal doesn't guarantee they're reliable to deal with other members. This will often go like "I'm a newbie but more trusted than the other newbie so send me money first because I've had previous trades here that shows I'm legit". This is how other newbies will easily get scammed. Not just newbies but I often see trusted people leaving feedback for trading 0.01 BTC once. This is typical trust farming and should be avoided.

This feeeback can be called both appropriate and inappropriate. For a trade which includes a service, it's not likely that it proves one's trustworthiness. On the other hand, perhaps SFR10 got a good impression. Couple of days ago, I was trusted with a little fund here from a newbie who don't know me, new in this forum as well. For him, I was a newbie as well. Trust doesn't come from a rank.

Probably SFR10 isn't aware of the new changes in the feedback criteria. As per the old system, shared by Loycemobile, the feedback is appropriate as well.

Personally i feel the feedback is okay because he was satisfied with the business transaction.

I would like you to look at it this way, Lets assume wolfbet had failed to carry out the transaction as agreed by both parties and SFR10 left them a negative feedback, would you still consider it as some random use of negative(red) trust because the account still has very little activity?
I think you get my point now.

I also can't call this as random use of green trust. This user hired SFR10 and paid him in advance, so there was trade between them. If such feedback would be left to high ranked user, everyone would see it as normal thing. But there is another thing - is it such deals is enough reason to give positive trust? Maybe neutral would be enough? But it's up to every user to decide.

This still doesn't necessarily mean that the positive trust is inappropriate here. If after their dealings the impression they are left with is that they are unlikely to scam anyone then the positive is warranted. The new system is just more inline with the way people used the old system - opinion based.