Topic: Replacing DefaultTrust - page 10. (Read 16276 times)

Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying that. I misread it as having to do this every time you wanted to view a new thread

You're only redirected to this page one time, when you first try to view a trust-enabled topic as a new member. It's for setting up your initial trust list.

I'm skipping past all the replies, so forgive me if these concerns have already been brought up. First, I'll go on record as saying this system appears cumbersome and somewhat annoying. I'm not just saying that because I'm in the DefaultTrust group and this change would affect my status quo (in fact Theymos even points out that I'd rank #2 for points in this proposed implementation of forum Trust). Right now there's a 1-click barrier to reading a thread, and that's actually clicking the thread link. The new proposed system would increase that click count by at least 300% and possibly by as much as 2000%+. Moreover users would be forced to evaluate each option every time they wanted to view a new thread, and while I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm pretty damn lazy and would probably just end up clicking the 3 check boxes that happened to be closest to my mouse pointer, resulting in totally random Trust ratings displayed within that thread.

That's just my $.02 from an end-user perspective.

Ok , the defaultTrust works better. Let see if theymos will add this new improvement to the trus system, because  the other users when see a negative/orange number under your name/avatar  (I'm sure) they will think firstly that you are a scammer and I'm (again) sure they will not read why do you have these orange/red number. *At the end this is the problem of the defaultTrust* no one know at 100% how it should work.

I will have to agree with this one. This system is much better and he's right.
The amount of trust differs a lot.

This is a very excellent example and I can't even think of a better one.

Depends, if BadBear had left a negative feedback with 1000BTC risked, it would have counted for more. In this case, I think the system is actually working pretty well. You don't show up as a scammer, but it does give someone pause that while you've successfully escrowed many transactions, there has been a problem.

Edit: By the same token, if you continue to offer escrow services and do so for a good period of time without incident, I would contact BB if I were you and ask him to change the feedback to a neutral.

Yes , let do an example : Now I have two negative feedback but I didn't scam anyone. Have these two feedback the same weight as  other two negative feedback of another user that have scammed someone ?

The problem is that people will abuse it. Don't like someone? -10. Do a good trade? +10. Its the same reason that neutrals really get used on here already, and why youtube swapped to a binary voting system.

I think the trust system should only be used for trading and nothing else. As it's starting to be used for other things you can see many problems arising and conflict around the forum. People's personal opinions should be kept to themselves as it may not reflect the majority of people's opinions a lot of the time. With a few exceptions to this such as feedback being given for people who are actively stopping scammers or participating in activities that require trust, I think the feedback system should primarily be used just for trading. I don't like how it's being used as a form of attack or punishment in unnecessary situations from users with more feedback weight and how it affects a persons ability to trade, when the feedback being given doesn't really have to do with trust at all. If there is a way for the feedback system to only be used for trading I think it would actively prevent all the complaints around the community where people claim abuse, corruption, etc. After all, it's the trust system and is supposed to be used to gauge someone's trust when trading and not reflect the personal opinions, which are often bias, of members around the forum.

Oh that reminds me, can we get the trust page added to the same page which holds profile and the other settings? Its in a bit of a weird place at the moment:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

I wanted to comment on the "trust exclusions". In my opinion this is EVEN WORSE than negatives on the default trust. At least if someone leaves an unjust negative rating the community can see it easily and can confront the user who left it. With trust exclusions it is completely in the dark, and it is FAR MORE destructive than a simple negative rating.

I got to be the first test case for trust exclusions. I at least understood after the fact why I was removed from the default trust list, but the punitive punishment of 2 times of trust exclusion applied to me by high ranking members now means the 3 people who are currently trusting me count as -2 trusting me, because clearly the higher ranking person deserves to be able to negate my ability to ever regain trust again under this system and hold me there permanently if they care to, because no lower ranking members, no matter how numerous can cancel that rating out because they sit at the top of the trust rank. The trust exclusions are FAR MORE EXPLOITABLE than even the current system alone. This is NOT an improvement, but instead centralizes power at the top EVEN MORE. It sounds superficially as if exclusions just remove users from your trust, but in reality it creates a negative trust negating any lower level existing trust listings totally.

Such good.

But yes, I think that would be useful. Better than the current "Risked BTC" implementation, at least.

This would be a nice thing to have. Adding someone to my trust list is a bit of a hassle. Not much, but having two buttons, makes it a lot easier.

I think this is very idea. #bitcoin-otc has -10 to 10 as rating possibility and it helps a lot.

You know someone in person, you two are friends and you would trust him/her with your life? +10. You did a small trade? +1. You don't trust this user because of personality? -1. See Rating guidelines for more. I often feel that a negative is too harsh, so I go back to neutral, even though that doesn't fully reflect my opinion about someone.

Just a couple comments.
First, in forums where the trust list is visible it might be handy to have a "Trust User" and "Exclude User" button added.
Second, this should be apparent but in the transition the existing trust settings should be kept (as shown in the test page)
Third, if we do transition to a new system based on this it might be a good idea to prompt users to add people they have sent feedback for (positive or negative) to their trust/exclude list in a simple way (radio buttons, checkbox, etc). I would imagine a great number of people aren't aware that they can and should add people to their trust list outside of the feedback system.


Somewhat related to both systems, is it worth investigating an additional level(s) of feedback in the system? Currently there's not really a difference between "This person is acting in a sketchy/slimy way, I don't trust them" and "This person stole 100BTC from me" in the numerical ratings. If people used it properly a separate rating for personality conflicts / general sleaziness as opposed to a full negative scammer rating might see the system used more. I can think of many people I wouldn't personally buy from / do business with / trust, but I don't want to leave negative feedback for given the gravity of it. I have my doubts such a thing would be used properly and personality issues still wouldn't just garner the same 9999BTC risked "This guy is a scammer!1!! He was mean to me in my for sale thread!!1!" feedback we see now.

Edit: Off the cuff suggestion, not well thought through. For the current system, what about adding the ability to moderate feedback left by/for others? The weighting would have to be very light, but in the current cases we see like the recent spats between Vod and other users it could be useful. If Vod leaves a negative trust for someone like iCEBREAKER and the preponderance of people think it is inappropriate, they could partially negate its effect on iCEBREAKER's trust rating. If you have (as an example) a dozen people in your trusted list that disagree with Vod's feedback of iCEBREAKER, the feedback would still remain but it wouldn't display in red as a potential scammer. It might allow default trust to stay while mitigating some of the potential abuses people complain about.

Its a dangerous game as it then adds an incentive for scammers to post / make threads, but if used properly could augment another system. I dont think its a system on its own, but sort of represents some of the community-ness of the forums.

That's where I'm leaning. This version becomes too much of a popularity contest, as everyone's vote (within reason) counts, even if they're trolls or smurfs. It doesn't take into account how trusted that person is, for example my trust rating from Inaba:

quote

counts for 4x as much as a trust rating Olly_K even though that was actually a transaction with a 30 risk.

Not to mention that many of my trust ratings, with Sztef89 for example for 100 risked, shbtc for 210 risked [just the first ones I checked] are not counted under the new system because they have <120 activity. And on top of that, the BFL trust competition ratings (all ~300 of them) would actually get magnified under the proposed system.

Something i was thinking and after reading a post here (i didnt read all posts yet) i think i will write about it just for the sake of discussion.

So, no we have plus points for people that we have traded successfully and minus points for people that have scammed us.

I propose a third point (lets call it warning points) that it is not correlated with the previous one, which is something like 'i believe that guy is a scammer or is saying bullshit or he is not going to deliver but i have no proofs for that'. And maybe have the option to give different weight each time you leave someone those points. And of course a small comment of why you leave those points.
I propose that because many times i wouldnt trade with someone as i think i am going to get scammed but since i didnt traded with him i dont want to call him a scammer. Or i would like to warn people about him but because his thread is moderated and i cant warn others or because i am not 100% sure again i dont want to call him a scammer.

Over all my thinking is that some of us understand when someone looks shady so we just ignore him but he still exists for the noobs that dont have enough experience.

Of course anyone would get points. And it will be personal. But i believe that after a while it will start showing with the combination of the current system who should one avoid till he gathers more experience. Those who would have less warning points and zero scam points would be with high confidence legit members.

It would also be expected for members with warning points to persuade others to take the points they left back by showing them why. And there should again be a small comment why along with the first allegation.

There are many examples. Like i would like to point out that people should not overtrust the operator of a major exchange but that doesnt mean he is a scammer now. Or maybe that we are pretty sure that this is a sockpuppet member but i cant  prove it again 100%. Maybe we understand that a specific member is a bought account which raises questions but again it doesnt mean 100% he is a scammer...
 

It's basically the same list  -- it's just that some users were removed from the earlier one because they were inactive or didn't have much of a trust list. (I think that a few people became full members in the interim or something, so the numbers are also slightly different.)

I could require that people have 37 points to be suggested...

That list doesn't have any of the requirements, it is just based on how many people have you in your trust list.

I don't even know how I am on this new list.  I only have "DefaultTrust" in my trust list.