Topic: Replacing DefaultTrust - page 13. (Read 16278 times)
Newbies already forced with Default Trust depth 2 if they don't change it, that's why its default. How couldn't it be better?
It's not better than Default Trust, so I voted for No. Forcing newbies to pick people to add to their trust list isn't the way to go.
This. Default Trust might not be perfect, but I don't believe the proposed changes would be an improvement.
Quote from: hilariousandco link=topic=914641.msg10055268#msg10055268
How can we view the results or is it just admins?
Must be, oops. Looks like any other poll to me.
It's not better than Default Trust, so I voted for No. Forcing newbies to pick people to add to their trust list isn't the way to go.
It's not the best solution but still better than Default Trust. I voted for Yes.
What if BadBear is feeding us false information in an attempt to swing the vote in his favour so he can keep hold of his defaulttrust tyranny?
Then it is all moving in accordance with the grand master plan H@C
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?
One could easily manipulate the poll with many accounts; is that right?
Well I'm sure they will unlock the results later
I guess its possible if your bored enough to modify a meta polls result seems like a pain though, best way around that is a very large sample size.
global moderator
Activity: 4032
Merit: 2731
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.
How can we view the results or is it just admins?
Well I can't see it as well H@C and since your at staff level it must be an admin only poll.
Will just need to trust Badbear on this one.
What if BadBear is feeding us false information in an attempt to swing the vote in his favour so he can keep hold of his defaulttrust tyranny?
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?
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.
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?
One could easily manipulate the poll with many accounts; is that right?
Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.
How can we view the results or is it just admins?
Well I can't see it as well H@C and since your at staff level it must be an admin only poll.
Will just need to trust Badbear on this one.
global moderator
Activity: 4032
Merit: 2731
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.
How can we view the results or is it just admins?
Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.
I think the vocal people are the minority. Most people are happy with the way things are being handled.
Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
Why do you want to suggest members that the user will probably not know? User shouldn't be force to select 3 random people that he never has interaction with!
Trust list should be empty at the beginning without any suggestion...
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.
Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
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. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.
When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.
What do you think of this?
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.
Suggested members must meet the following criteria:
- Full member or above
- At least one post in the last 60 days
- At least 10 people listed in their trust list
- At least 20 points (see below)
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. The 60 people with the highest scores are selected, this list is randomly sorted with a higher weight given to people with higher scores, and the top 30 people in the resulting list are suggested.
When the change is made, everyone who currently has only DefaultTrust in their trust list will be redirected to the Set Initial Trust page.
What do you think of this?
It seems like an interesting system since people will be able to choose from a list of active users whom they wish to trust
New Users will get a blank slate and people can still view Trust for additional information
Only burden I see is that people are lazy enough to not look at show other comments in the trust pane otherwise I think its worth a shot myself.
As for the intricate details surviving a BFL attack of a lot of trust ratings being sent that are false
Or the case of having a powerful user marking a new user and destroying their reputation prematurely this system still has similar pros and cons to default trust, the main difference being that the main users with weighting remain influential in this one for a while even if they get scammer ratings from other members.
If I read this correctly that would be only occur as long as their points are not pushed down rapidly by others, but if I read it correctly in the worst case if there are 3 people on the trust list, and one of them becomes a scammer then the list is effectively two but the person keeps the scammer in question in their default trust for a long duration of time, even if the point value goes down and the members they trusted doesn't seem like it would be a large issue if those trades were trustworthy up to that point though.
As it is Oldscammer Tag/Default Trust could be users as well, perhaps using an extended trust list + personal selections.
Still on the trust no one by default view
(Except Theymos since it put you in the list by default hehe)
has anyone put together a concise pros and cons between current and proposed systems?
expanding the defaulttrust is a very good idea, whether this is achieved by expanding current list or by implementing the proposed system, the forum will be better off. More honest folks should get into deftrust.
expanding the defaulttrust is a very good idea, whether this is achieved by expanding current list or by implementing the proposed system, the forum will be better off. More honest folks should get into deftrust.
Don't really see how the new system would be an advantage over the old one. Prone to the same abuses.
The only way to gain trust points is by adding 10 people to your trust list?
What if one of those people trusts someone that you don't?
What if one of those people trusts someone that you don't?
Then you have to add the person you don't trust with a ~ in front of their name.
Can't believe I never knew this. Thanks!
Don't really see how the new system would be an advantage over the old one. Prone to the same abuses.
The only change would be forcing people to add users to their trust? Most will probably add Theymos, Badbear etc and they rarely leave negative trust as it is. Not really combating scammers.
The only way to gain trust points is by adding 10 people to your trust list?
What if one of those people trusts someone that you don't?
What if one of those people trusts someone that you don't?
At least 10 people.
Then you have to add the person you don't trust with a ~ in front of their name.
The only way to gain trust points is by adding 10 people to your trust list?
What if one of those people trusts someone that you don't?
What if one of those people trusts someone that you don't?
Sweet a bunch of new posts, there should be lots of good discussion about replacing defaulttru...oh. 
Good job guys.
Good job guys.
Could dipshits like VOD get off the list?
Than I'm all for it.
If your going to be on the default list, you should have SOME sort of responsibilities.
Than I'm all for it.
If your going to be on the default list, you should have SOME sort of responsibilities.
Jump to: