Replacing DefaultTrust - page 11. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Here are the points without any of the other restrictions. establishedTrusters = the number of full members and above who trust that person. People are only counted as trusting DefaultTrust if they have edited their trust list at least once.

Code:

+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| realName | establishedTrusters | points |
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| DefaultTrust | 1110 | 3525.7408 |
| theymos | 104 | 509.8577 |
| John (John K.) | 84 | 392.0999 |
| BadBear | 43 | 229.0416 |
| Tomatocage | 51 | 226.0915 |
| dooglus | 45 | 206.4081 |
| Gavin Andresen | 30 | 174.4667 |
| Maged | 27 | 162.1331 |
| CanaryInTheMine | 44 | 161.7747 |
| HostFat | 32 | 155.6164 |
| gmaxwell | 29 | 154.1247 |
| OgNasty | 35 | 154.0579 |
| casascius | 25 | 151.5666 |
| DannyHamilton | 32 | 139.2000 |
| SaltySpitoon | 29 | 135.1082 |
| Blazedout419 | 26 | 114.2748 |
| ThickAsThieves | 23 | 111.3583 |
| escrow.ms | 24 | 111.1747 |
| BCB | 22 | 110.5665 |
| yxt | 23 | 110.1749 |
| Akka | 21 | 109.8831 |
| friedcat | 24 | 109.7498 |
| phantastisch | 20 | 106.1249 |
| burnside | 25 | 103.0582 |
| Stunna | 24 | 102.5416 |
| tysat | 17 | 101.7332 |
| satoshi | 19 | 96.7750 |
| SebastianJu | 21 | 93.5168 |
| sirius | 19 | 89.4330 |
| DeaDTerra | 17 | 82.1833 |
| nanotube | 12 | 79.8498 |
| qwk | 14 | 74.8585 |
| Luke-Jr | 20 | 73.4914 |
| Blazr | 12 | 71.7498 |
| ghibly79 | 15 | 71.6500 |
| ckolivas | 13 | 69.1250 |
| Carnth | 14 | 68.8415 |
| LoweryCBS | 10 | 67.8999 |
| jgarzik | 9 | 67.6667 |
| bertani | 11 | 67.6083 |
| paci | 11 | 67.1083 |
| Maidak | 20 | 66.3416 |
| dree12 | 9 | 66.0332 |
| Michail1 | 12 | 65.6500 |
| El Cabron | 22 | 65.5582 |
| diego1000 | 11 | 64.5499 |
| BigBitz | 15 | 62.5416 |
| Sampey | 20 | 62.1666 |
| Stemby | 10 | 61.0750 |
| malevolent | 11 | 58.5415 |
| ziomik | 10 | 58.4833 |
| OldScammerTag | 12 | 56.5998 |
| xetsr | 14 | 55.4666 |
| Raize | 9 | 55.1832 |
| mikegogulski | 8 | 53.8999 |
| Pieter Wuille | 7 | 53.2000 |
| Vod | 23 | 52.8914 |
| sublime5447 | 17 | 52.6166 |
| Kluge | 11 | 52.5332 |
| devthedev | 11 | 52.4582 |
| BayAreaCoins | 10 | 51.9832 |
| bitpop | 13 | 50.8417 |
| dwdoc | 9 | 50.7499 |
| DiamondCardz | 8 | 50.4666 |
| johnniewalker | 12 | 50.2749 |
| ercolinux | 7 | 50.1083 |
| DeathAndTaxes | 11 | 50.0916 |
| rb1205 | 6 | 49.8583 |
| alexrossi | 9 | 49.0583 |
| Benson Samuel | 10 | 48.6998 |
| Dabs | 11 | 48.4584 |
| bitcoininformation | 12 | 48.3249 |
| serp | 12 | 48.2833 |
| fhh | 10 | 48.0916 |
| Nightowlace | 14 | 47.7167 |
| klintay | 11 | 46.9250 |
| PsychoticBoy | 13 | 46.4250 |
| cooldgamer | 14 | 46.4084 |
| squall1066 | 10 | 45.8500 |
| GIANNAT | 10 | 45.8167 |
| Cripto | 6 | 44.1416 |
| Mushroomized | 7 | 43.5582 |
| Bees Brothers | 8 | 43.0917 |
| ineededausername | 9 | 42.6415 |
| 2weiX | 8 | 42.5832 |
| etotheipi | 8 | 40.9084 |
| Menig | 13 | 40.2667 |
| dozerz | 10 | 39.6667 |
| molecular | 8 | 39.6417 |
| zefir | 9 | 39.3250 |
| KWH | 10 | 39.2915 |
| sushi | 10 | 39.1249 |
| ssinc | 9 | 39.1083 |
| twbt | 7 | 39.0167 |
| Rassah | 8 | 38.9333 |
| sveetsnelda | 7 | 38.8833 |
| philipma1957 | 12 | 38.7750 |
| evoorhees | 6 | 38.5167 |
| TheButterZone | 13 | 38.3414 |
| Damnsammit | 8 | 37.9500 |
+--------------------+---------------------+-----------+

Beastlymac

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 501

Miner Setup And Reviews. WASP Rep.

@theymos is it possible to view a list of the top 100 or more people in the list?

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: Vod on January 05, 2015, 11:31:48 PM

FYI, I added the top 15 people in your list to my trust settings, and accounts that were proven scammers were showing up in my trusted feedback list. Undecided

That's because not enough people use trust exclusions. Under the new system, people will need to get into the habit of excluding people who leave bad feedback.

If someone has a trust network like this:

ExamplePerson
Idiot
Scammer
Guy
Dude

Then either ExamplePerson or Guy and Dude together can cause Scammer to be excluded. So if a decent number of people are excluding people who give bad ratings (or who trust such people), then bad ratings are likely to be excluded.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 06, 2015, 12:37:29 AM

A second concern is that I think this system is going to be slow to be able to react to someone who was previously honest and later turns into a scammer.

If someone directly trusts a a scammer, then they are indeed in a bad situation, and they'll need to remove the person manually. I might add a warning to trust pages for people who directly trust a scammer if this ever happens.

It's not a big deal at lower depths due to exclusions.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 06, 2015, 12:37:29 AM

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.

You'd need a lot of accounts for that. 20 full members to make the list, ~100 to get reasonably high in it (currently -- the requirements will probably become higher if this system is adopted). And I'd stop this from happening once I'd notice it, so people buying these accounts would be spending a lot of money on only a very short-term advantage.

Quote from: CanaryInTheMine on January 06, 2015, 02:58:27 AM

has anyone put together a concise pros and cons between current and proposed systems?

New system pros:
- More people in the typical trust network, so more default-visible ratings, more accurate scores, etc.
- Newbies will be more aware of how the trust system works, so they'll be more likely to use it properly.
- Everything will be less complicated for everyone involved. You won't be able to know what everyone else sees, so all you'll be able to do is maintain your ratings and trust list according to your own feelings. This is how I intended the trust system to work.
- There won't be people who are clearly "at the top" of the trust system. Furthermore, I will no longer need to carefully ensure that the default trust network is OK for everyone.

New system cons:
- More people in the typical trust network, so inaccurate ratings might happen more often, though they should hopefully be balanced by an increase in accurate ratings.
- People who in practice tend to be at the top of the trust system might feel less accountability/responsibility for maintaining their trust lists than they would if they were listed in DefaultTrust.
- It will be difficult to get a picture of how well someone is trusted for the typical forum user.
- People will need to interact with the trust list system at least a little bit, and not just leave it to DefaultTrust.

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 06, 2015, 05:48:53 AM

I like the suggestion of removing default trust lists completely.

Then newbies will be getting scammed left and right. Newbies need some sort of guidance.

Quote from: MadZ on January 06, 2015, 06:03:23 AM

The trust lists of everyone at depth 1 are public, which has historically kept Default Trust mostly comprised of reputable members. This is not the case with the "suggested trust" list under the new system.

All trust lists are public. You can see anyone's trust list by trusting them and then looking at the hierarchical view of the trust network on the Trust Settings page.

Quote from: MadZ on January 06, 2015, 06:03:23 AM

My point here is that Default Trust gives a new user a good starting point about who to trust and who not to trust, while this new system asks them to pick their own "Default Trust" pretty much at random, since they will probably have little reason to pick one name over another.

I think that it's OK to trust users at random as long as:
- None of them are creating new accounts to inflate their own trust. The trust score algorithm relies on everyone in a trust network being a separate person. People at depth 0 can trust additional users without consequence if the user trusting them isn't paying attention.
- More of the randomly-trusted users have actively good trust lists than actively bad ones.
- At least a few randomly-trusted users have actively good trust lists.

If these conditions are met, then any incorrect ratings will be excluded by the people with good trust lists.

I think that the suggestion system is likely to result in lists meeting the above criteria. And if a highly-trusted user who was previously suggested starts creating and trusting fake accounts, I'll do something to stop him, or at least warn users.

Quote from: OgNasty on January 06, 2015, 12:41:08 PM

A quick glance shows that I'm not one of the 50 most trusted members here?

You don't meet the criteria for suggested users. You only have two users on your trust list. You would have 154 points otherwise.

Quote from: OgNasty on January 06, 2015, 12:41:08 PM

I also see that bobsag3 who openly scammed me and had his original username scammer tagged is on the list, adding positive trust for companies like Black Arrow who have stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from this community.

He's still quite widely trusted. Users will be able to avoid selecting him on the suggestion page.

I could manually exclude people like him, but doing that would likely be controversial in itself, and I'd prefer to keep this as automated as possible.

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on January 06, 2015, 04:42:38 PM

Will the new system have the negative trust indexable via the search engines, for as it stands now nary a negative comment has ever been indexed, only found on this forum via jumping through hoops depending on what settings are ticked?

Trust pages are entirely customized per user, so they can't be viewed by non-users such as search engines.

Reynaldo

legendary

Activity: 1143

Merit: 1000

Why don't you add to the formula that people get 30 random people from the most visited area that the user visits, that means that you'll need a formula to determine the most used forum by an user and then that it poops up 30-50 people from the 5 most visited area of the forums..

MadZ

hero member

Activity: 908

Merit: 657

Quote from: OgNasty on January 06, 2015, 12:41:08 PM

Quote from: theymos on January 05, 2015, 04:26:16 AM

Here are the 50 users with the most points using the algorithm I described. The top 30 are always the ones suggested, but their order is randomized.

Code:

theymos | 471.3498 |
Tomatocage | 192.7250 |
dooglus | 181.7917 |
BadBear | 180.2750 |
CanaryInTheMine | 153.0830 |
HostFat | 144.6331 |
gmaxwell | 133.5581 |
Akka | 109.1663 |
BCB | 104.3748 |
escrow.ms | 101.2499 |
phantastisch | 99.6915 |
ghibly79 | 65.8998 |
Michail1 | 65.2249 |
Maidak | 62.5085 |
Sampey | 61.8499 |
BigBitz | 58.6833 |
ziomik | 58.1333 |
malevolent | 52.4748 |
sublime5447 | 52.4665 |
Stemby | 51.0416 |
Dabs | 48.2251 |
Nightowlace | 47.6417 |
klintay | 46.5750 |
Raize | 44.0998 |
bitpop | 43.7249 |
fhh | 40.5083 |
zefir | 39.2083 |
squall1066 | 38.5001 |
philipma1957 | 38.4251 |
PsychoticBoy | 35.5750 |
KWH | 35.5581 |
terrapinflyer | 34.8666 |
binaryFate | 33.8332 |
Bicknellski | 33.5084 |
DebitMe | 30.1501 |
elasticband | 29.8501 |
TECSHARE | 29.3915 |
LouReed | 28.9249 |
2weiX | 28.6999 |
ManeBjorn | 27.5749 |
miaviator | 27.3333 |
androz | 26.2500 |
bobsag3 | 25.9415 |
nachius | 25.2916 |
CoinHoarder | 23.3749 |
mrbrt | 23.1249 |
EnJoyThis | 22.5167 |
WEB slicer | 20.3749 |
Rub3n | 20.0251 |
Ente | 18.9750 |
----------------+--------------+

A quick glance shows that I'm not one of the 50 most trusted members here? That's somewhat shocking to me. I also see that bobsag3 who openly scammed me and had his original username scammer tagged is on the list, adding positive trust for companies like Black Arrow who have stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from this community. Very disturbing because I thought the trust system we had in place was working out great and holding up well as evidenced by BFL_Josh's failed trust sabotage experiment. If you pay close attention to your trust network and use it appropriately, it is quite accurate in my opinion. I worry that this new method is already off to a bad start when I see known repeat scammers on the list who would give newbies a positive trust rating for companies like Black Arrow. Again, I just took a quick glance.

While I dislike the proposed system, I will explain why you are not in the top 50 under the example theymos posted, and there is a legitimate reason for it. People gain points on that list by being added to someone's trust list manually. Since you are at depth 1, few people have had any reason to add you to their personal trust lists, so you have a very low score. As you can see, many users who are high up in the top 50, such as Maidak, simpey, and BigBitz are not in default trust at all. The reason they are so high on this list at the moment is because a lot of people have manually added them to their own trust lists, since they are trusted traders but not in default trust. Their scores would be much lower if they were in default trust, since people would have no reason to manually add them. All trust lists would be reset if the new system was put in place, and you would almost certainly be in the top 10 once you are no longer automatically in people's trust lists.

SaltySpitoon

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 2156

Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?

Quote from: dogie on January 06, 2015, 05:49:17 PM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on January 06, 2015, 04:12:09 PM

If people create an alt army to spam someone's trust, it will be very apparent and people will value those 30 identical reviews much less than a single -1 showing up next to someones name. If someone has a valid feedback claim, it will be typed in a legible matter, it will be accurate in the amount of BTC risked, and there will be a reference link where a reasonable person could read through the evidence and make an informed judgement call over whether that person is trustworthy.

You may be able to tell the difference, but 95% of members won't. They'll just see a wall of red and close that window, never to trade with that person again.

Right, but dont make it red, just feedback, and it will force them to read it.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on January 06, 2015, 04:12:09 PM

If people create an alt army to spam someone's trust, it will be very apparent and people will value those 30 identical reviews much less than a single -1 showing up next to someones name. If someone has a valid feedback claim, it will be typed in a legible matter, it will be accurate in the amount of BTC risked, and there will be a reference link where a reasonable person could read through the evidence and make an informed judgement call over whether that person is trustworthy.

You may be able to tell the difference, but 95% of members won't. They'll just see a wall of red and close that window, never to trade with that person again.

Gleb Gamow

vip

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1145

Will the new system have the negative trust indexable via the search engines, for as it stands now nary a negative comment has ever been indexed, only found on this forum via jumping through hoops depending on what settings are ticked?

Try this example on for size: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Buying+trust+and+other+sketchy+things%22

Like I've said, not a single negative comment has ever been indexed by Google or any other search engine.

SaltySpitoon

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 2156

Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?

Putting in a system that can be gamed is worse than no system at all. A lot of the anti feedback sentiment is coming from hardend BCT members. Just because the 5% of people that have been around here 2+ years know how not to get scammed, doesn't mean that the 50,000 newbies aren't going to be lending their money to the people who's dogs need operations offering a 50% return per day compounded continuously for a week. I'm all for self responsibility, which I'd say all in all the userbase here does by % pretty well, but there is still a massive population that would get ripped off at every given turn. There are some scam busters that are 100% necessary, I can't think of a single time where Tomatocage has had a thread opened against him, Vod on the other hand is just a more aggressive scam buster and makes more enemies. We need people to take responsibilty for themselves, but we can't forsake the newbies either.

I still support my no trust lists, no numbers, just a straight feedback system where people can leave their thoughts/opinions. If people create an alt army to spam someone's trust, it will be very apparent and people will value those 30 identical reviews much less than a single -1 showing up next to someones name. If someone has a valid feedback claim, it will be typed in a legible matter, it will be accurate in the amount of BTC risked, and there will be a reference link where a reasonable person could read through the evidence and make an informed judgement call over whether that person is trustworthy. Having to search someone's name in scam accusations is not the way to go, but an unmoderated, unweighted, spreadsheet/list of a person's feedback with the day, btc risked, reference link, and comment is the most hands off yet stilll useful approach. If I see a review by Tomatocage on someone's profile that says they are scammy, I'm going to think for myself how much I value tomatocage's feedback, rather than relying on a big red negative number to do it for me.

CanaryInTheMine

donator

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1060

between a rock and a block!

Quote from: OgNasty on January 06, 2015, 12:41:08 PM

Quote from: theymos on January 05, 2015, 04:26:16 AM

Here are the 50 users with the most points using the algorithm I described. The top 30 are always the ones suggested, but their order is randomized.

Code:

theymos | 471.3498 |
Tomatocage | 192.7250 |
dooglus | 181.7917 |
BadBear | 180.2750 |
CanaryInTheMine | 153.0830 |
HostFat | 144.6331 |
gmaxwell | 133.5581 |
Akka | 109.1663 |
BCB | 104.3748 |
escrow.ms | 101.2499 |
phantastisch | 99.6915 |
ghibly79 | 65.8998 |
Michail1 | 65.2249 |
Maidak | 62.5085 |
Sampey | 61.8499 |
BigBitz | 58.6833 |
ziomik | 58.1333 |
malevolent | 52.4748 |
sublime5447 | 52.4665 |
Stemby | 51.0416 |
Dabs | 48.2251 |
Nightowlace | 47.6417 |
klintay | 46.5750 |
Raize | 44.0998 |
bitpop | 43.7249 |
fhh | 40.5083 |
zefir | 39.2083 |
squall1066 | 38.5001 |
philipma1957 | 38.4251 |
PsychoticBoy | 35.5750 |
KWH | 35.5581 |
terrapinflyer | 34.8666 |
binaryFate | 33.8332 |
Bicknellski | 33.5084 |
DebitMe | 30.1501 |
elasticband | 29.8501 |
TECSHARE | 29.3915 |
LouReed | 28.9249 |
2weiX | 28.6999 |
ManeBjorn | 27.5749 |
miaviator | 27.3333 |
androz | 26.2500 |
bobsag3 | 25.9415 |
nachius | 25.2916 |
CoinHoarder | 23.3749 |
mrbrt | 23.1249 |
EnJoyThis | 22.5167 |
WEB slicer | 20.3749 |
Rub3n | 20.0251 |
Ente | 18.9750 |
----------------+--------------+

A quick glance shows that I'm not one of the 50 most trusted members here? That's somewhat shocking to me. I also see that bobsag3 who openly scammed me and had his original username scammer tagged is on the list, adding positive trust for companies like Black Arrow who have stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from this community. Very disturbing because I thought the trust system we had in place was working out great and holding up well as evidenced by BFL_Josh's failed trust sabotage experiment. If you pay close attention to your trust network and use it appropriately, it is quite accurate in my opinion. I worry that this new method is already off to a bad start when I see known repeat scammers on the list who would give newbies a positive trust rating for companies like Black Arrow. Again, I just took a quick glance.

I think you raise a valid question: who benefits from the new approach? If shady characters and scammers can benefit from this, forget the system.

They are crying about the current system anyways and desperately trying to subvert it?

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 06, 2015, 10:19:57 AM

Dear Brother Thermos, will you please admit that Trust Ranking has utterly failed in its ostensible purpose of scam prevention?

XPOST:

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 06, 2015, 10:08:40 AM

Quote from: peligro on November 19, 2014, 01:59:32 AM

In the end why are you so bothered? Your buyers can see your feedback and see that you are a reputed seller.

If TECSHARE doesn't deserve Default Trust, almost nobody does. Especially not that begging, hectoring collectivist Bitchnellski.

I'm not bothered, but rather amused at the absurdity of the fiasco which is the BTCT Trust ranking system.

Satoshi, after years of others trying to fine-tune and prevent gaming of decentralized online trust consensus systems, cut that Gordian Knot with his PoW blockchain.

What incendiary irony that His Holy Forum struggles with and bickers over its centralized, politicized, at-best minimally useful Trust ranking system.

Yes, yes. We know. It's For The Children^TM (IE noobs). Of course.

How's that working out for us? Are we free from the Paycoins of the world yet? Has the trust system done anything but sow conflict and create rancorous distractions?

Did Satoshi teach us nothing about the unworkability of such systems?

Please trash the stupid thing and be done with it. Let those who haven't learned use the WOT, and those who have the appropriate feedback threads.

You cannot automate this. Nobody can, although many have tried. Stop wasting (y)our time and pissing people off with these vain high-maintenance attempts.

I have been trying to say this for a while but all I get is attacks for it. I wish Theymos would start fixing things BEFORE people attack me instead of always after and just pretending like the flawed system didn't contribute. I do appreciate the fact that you are at least trying to do something, not that it really helps me at this point beyond not having to watch the community destroy itself. We don't need default trust. We don't need "scambusters". People should be taking responsibility for themselves.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

Please bear with me [2] when reading this as I might repeat things others have said, but I binge reply to 6 pages here.

Quote from: theymos on January 05, 2015, 04:19:31 AM

I was thinking about replacing DefaultTrust in the following way:

When users first try to view a topic in a Trust-enabled section, they will instead see this page and be forced to select some users to trust before being allowed to continue to the topic. In addition to the empty text box currently on the Trust settings page, up to 30 users will be suggested.

While I like the basic idea of people creating their own list, I find this:

Quote from: theymos on January 05, 2015, 04:19:31 AM

-snip-
Each person gets N points whenever they are trusted by someone, and loses N points whenever they are distrusted by someone, where N = 0 if the rater is less than a full member and N = [rater's activity]/120 if the rater is at least a full member.

This greatly favours account farmers. While this would be a great idea if we somehow could ensure one account per physical entitiy (human, feline overlord, dog, etc.) anyone can create new accounts, farm the accounts for 120 days and use them to boost trust of a single account. This could even be sold as a service to others in need of a little trustboost. There are probably people farming accounts for sales allready.

Quote from: Parazyd on January 05, 2015, 05:16:57 AM

I agree with Vod, newbies will probably forget about it when it's set. Perhaps writing up a thread about the trust system and forcing newbies to read it? The text on the current suggest page looks good, but it's important and should be made looking more important.
Maybe a sticky in trust-enabled sections too?

As we allready see people do not read stickies and you cant actually force someone to read something. You can force them to load the page and wait a certain amount of time before clicking something, but they might as well bounce a ball[1] while they have to wait.

Quote from: dserrano5 on January 05, 2015, 05:30:00 AM

-snip-

Quote from: Parazyd on January 05, 2015, 05:27:44 AM

That's maybe why it isn't good for newbies to choose this. You can and should add people you trust to your trust list.

That requires thinking, something a lot of people find so hard that they won't do it.

Which is fine for them, isnt it? I dont think this board should try (and fail) to force people into anything. People invest in HYIP and Ponzies all the time.

Quote from: theymos on January 05, 2015, 11:23:34 PM

-snip-
If someone only ever uses the checkboxes to edit their trust list, then I will make it so that this doesn't increase the "suggestion points" of the people they select. (This isn't implemented yet.)

I like this, but someone gameing the system would obviously work around this and edit the list by hand.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 06, 2015, 12:37:29 AM

My major concern is that there are very few people who give negative trust to scammers and potential scammers.
-snip-

IMHO this can be prevented by a good amount (~50 should do currently) of old timers adding those in question (e.g. Vod) to their trust list. Thus the "scam busters" stay on top of the new points system. At least until the shill armada arrives.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 06, 2015, 12:37:29 AM

-snip-
With the proposed system, each user would need to manually remove TF (in this example) from their trust network which will probably not be updated very often. Users may or may not set a trust network and "forget it" but I don't think they will, as a general rule check places like scam accusations on a regular basis to make sure a new scammer who was previously trusted is removed from their network.

While this is true it also decentralizes trust.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 06, 2015, 12:37:29 AM

I would say that the people who are trusted by default trust should have a somewhat large trust network and be active in adding (and removing as necessary) users to their trust network.
-snip-
I also think we shouldn't have people like CanaryInTheMine who add everyone and their brother they have ever done business with as this will result in people in default trust network that should realistically not be there.

While I understand your point I see no way to moderate this. You cant encurage people to be active (which can be gamed as well btw) and at the same time punish them if they are over a certain, arbitrary point.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 06, 2015, 12:37:29 AM

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.

Thanks for bringing this up again. As I wrote above you dont even have to buy accounts, but could farm them yourself. 120 days might be worth spending on 50+ accounts for a long con or as a service.
If I may ask: how many accounts do you currently control that could influence this? Just to get an impression how much "power" youd have under the new system. A sum of all activity points >120 would be nice to compare it easily.

Quote from: hilariousandco on January 06, 2015, 04:28:23 AM

-snip-

Quote from: Lauda on January 06, 2015, 04:23:17 AM

I think that in this case it actually matters who voted for what.
One could easily manipulate the poll with many accounts; is that right?

They could and I'm sure theymos will take that into consideration and/or look out for abuse.

Theymos stated that only certain votes will count. E.g. no fresh/youngs accounts etc.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 06, 2015, 10:19:57 AM

-snip-
You cannot automate this. Nobody can, although many have tried. Stop wasting (y)our time and pissing people off with these vain high-maintenance attempts.

IMHO this is a valid point. Id still set the default trust list "for the children" and suggest they create their own list as initiation ritual (e.g. after reaching member rank or maybe sr. member rank) which does not suggest any user. Allow any informed Newbie to do set up a list earlier and let those undecided get accustomed with the board first.

[1] http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/RcG/7G4/RcG7G4A4i.gif
[2] http://imgdonkey.com/big/VGE1MHlVWg/bear-with-me.gif

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4760

Merit: 4323

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: theymos on January 05, 2015, 04:26:16 AM

Here are the 50 users with the most points using the algorithm I described. The top 30 are always the ones suggested, but their order is randomized.

Code:

theymos | 471.3498 |
Tomatocage | 192.7250 |
dooglus | 181.7917 |
BadBear | 180.2750 |
CanaryInTheMine | 153.0830 |
HostFat | 144.6331 |
gmaxwell | 133.5581 |
Akka | 109.1663 |
BCB | 104.3748 |
escrow.ms | 101.2499 |
phantastisch | 99.6915 |
ghibly79 | 65.8998 |
Michail1 | 65.2249 |
Maidak | 62.5085 |
Sampey | 61.8499 |
BigBitz | 58.6833 |
ziomik | 58.1333 |
malevolent | 52.4748 |
sublime5447 | 52.4665 |
Stemby | 51.0416 |
Dabs | 48.2251 |
Nightowlace | 47.6417 |
klintay | 46.5750 |
Raize | 44.0998 |
bitpop | 43.7249 |
fhh | 40.5083 |
zefir | 39.2083 |
squall1066 | 38.5001 |
philipma1957 | 38.4251 |
PsychoticBoy | 35.5750 |
KWH | 35.5581 |
terrapinflyer | 34.8666 |
binaryFate | 33.8332 |
Bicknellski | 33.5084 |
DebitMe | 30.1501 |
elasticband | 29.8501 |
TECSHARE | 29.3915 |
LouReed | 28.9249 |
2weiX | 28.6999 |
ManeBjorn | 27.5749 |
miaviator | 27.3333 |
androz | 26.2500 |
bobsag3 | 25.9415 |
nachius | 25.2916 |
CoinHoarder | 23.3749 |
mrbrt | 23.1249 |
EnJoyThis | 22.5167 |
WEB slicer | 20.3749 |
Rub3n | 20.0251 |
Ente | 18.9750 |
----------------+--------------+

A quick glance shows that I'm not one of the 50 most trusted members here? That's somewhat shocking to me. I also see that bobsag3 who openly scammed me and had his original username scammer tagged is on the list, adding positive trust for companies like Black Arrow who have stolen hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from this community. Very disturbing because I thought the trust system we had in place was working out great and holding up well as evidenced by BFL_Josh's failed trust sabotage experiment. If you pay close attention to your trust network and use it appropriately, it is quite accurate in my opinion. I worry that this new method is already off to a bad start when I see known repeat scammers on the list who would give newbies a positive trust rating for companies like Black Arrow. Again, I just took a quick glance.

rugrats

sr. member

Activity: 700

Merit: 250

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: dserrano5 on January 06, 2015, 10:45:46 AM

Please take that argument elsewhere, it's off topic here.

No argument. I gave my opinion to Theymos, and someone challenged one of points I brought up.

Mitchell

copper member

Activity: 3948

Merit: 2201

Verified awesomeness ✔

Quote from: rugrats on January 06, 2015, 10:43:57 AM

Why are you asking an obvious question?

Apparently that is obvious to you, but it's not to me.

Quote from: rugrats on January 06, 2015, 10:43:57 AM

Also, we are not talking about 'bad members'. We are talking about DefaultTrust members.
Can you please link me to the profile of the DefaultTrust member you claim to have seen being removed?

I thought you were talking about the DefaultTrust in general and not about someone being removed from level 1. I've no idea about that, sorry.

Quote from: dserrano5 on January 06, 2015, 10:45:46 AM

Please take that argument elsewhere, it's off topic here.

I'm done. Sorry for the derail.

dserrano5

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1029

Please take that argument elsewhere, it's off topic here.

rugrats

sr. member

Activity: 700

Merit: 250

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: Mitchell on January 06, 2015, 10:41:43 AM

Quote from: rugrats on January 06, 2015, 10:39:08 AM

Aah, so you are not an impartial observer. You have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. For the record though, you are not on the DefaultList - just depth level 2. You're not in the super class league. Since you brought up CanaryInTheMine, has his status changed yet with all the notice he received?

Why would I have a vested interest in maintaining my depth level 2 status? I don't care about it. I will voice my opinion anyway if I feel that it's necessary. As far as I know, CanaryInTheMine has removed the bad members from his trust list and the issue was resolved.

Why are you asking an obvious question? Also, we are not talking about 'bad members'. We are talking about DefaultTrust members.
Can you please link me to the profile of the DefaultTrust member you claim to have seen being removed?

Quote from: Mitchell on January 06, 2015, 10:41:43 AM

More about this can be found: here.

CanaryInTheMine is still on the DefaultList. What is your point?

Mitchell

copper member

Activity: 3948

Merit: 2201

Verified awesomeness ✔

Quote from: rugrats on January 06, 2015, 10:39:08 AM

Aah, so you are not an impartial observer. You have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. For the record though, you are not on the DefaultList - just depth level 2. You're not in the super class league. Since you brought up CanaryInTheMine, has his status changed yet with all the notice he received?

Why would I have a vested interest in maintaining my depth level 2 status? I don't care about it. I will voice my opinion anyway if I feel that it's necessary. As far as I know, CanaryInTheMine has removed the bad members from his trust list and the issue was resolved.

More about this can be found: here.

rugrats

sr. member

Activity: 700

Merit: 250

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: Mitchell on January 06, 2015, 10:31:02 AM

Quote from: rugrats on January 06, 2015, 10:27:06 AM

It gets noticed alright, but does anything actually happen mate?
I could be wrong, but in my time here, I've never seen anyone on the DefaultList removed.
But on a more fundamental level, aren't you the least bit uncomfortable by the very presence of a super class of users?

I have seen it before, yes. The last time wasn't that long ago and was about some people that CanaryInTheMine had on his trust list / that he rated. And no, I don't feel uncomfortable with a "super class" of users "above" me. I have been here for over 1.5 years and I never had any problem with the "super class", even though I don't always agree with them.
In fact, I joined the "super class" yesterday, because BadBear added me to his list. Does that make me a better human? Not at all.

Aah, so you are not an impartial observer. You have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. For the record though, you are not on the DefaultList - just depth level 2. You're not in the super class league. Since you brought up CanaryInTheMine, has his status changed yet with all the notice he received?

Edit:

Quote from: Mitchell on January 06, 2015, 10:31:02 AM

I have seen it before, yes.

Can you link me to the profile of the referred DefaultTrust member?

Topic: Replacing DefaultTrust - page 11. (Read 16259 times)