Topic: Replacing DefaultTrust - page 16. (Read 16264 times)

On a different direction, taking into account the sent feedback could be useful to personalize the list. E.g. if I've given positive feedback to user BitAddict and he's not currently among my trusted users, he could appear in the list.

 I think it might be better to have the suggested list from the qualifying individuals be randomized for one. I agree that having new users do this might not be the best idea, which is why I think randomizing it might help so lazy people just clicking the first few names in front of them don't pick the same users all the time. At least in this manner users can work to earn a trust level to be included in the randomized default choice pool.

I also don't like the idea of a higher trust ranked member being able to exclude completely the trust of a lower ranked members. This is in effect no different than burning a users account with a negative rating via the default trust for nothing more than a personal choice not to trust a user. The trust system shouldn't be a tool of moderation of trust ratings, individuals should be making these distinctions via ratings and trust settings. If someone is out of line they should be appealing to the public of the forum to take action, not using their superior position of trust to negate the trust of others UNLESS there is sufficient evidence they are engaged in fraudulent trade activity and done so in the form of a negative trust rating. The use of exclusions IMO should be averaged out between the 2 users ratings at least, but not completely negated otherwise all that will happen is those with the highest ranks will use exclusions instead of negatives to take non-trade related retribution upon users.

As far as I know there are no standards for exclusions anywhere, so users could therefore make them for any reason and have a significant negative impact on a lower ranked account regardless of how hard they work or how many successful trades they make, they will never be able to recover from it.



This sounds like a more reasonable solution to me. Furthermore making the higher weighted users have more likelihood of being displayed is another feedback mechanism that favors higher ranked users over anyone within the acceptable parameters. I think a randomly generated list selected from the users within the acceptable rating, then explained to the user might be more efficient instead of forcing new users to pick from lists of people they likely don't know. They can always update it to include or exclude users later.

Probably one of the better solutions that I have seen for this. Although I agree that a potential issue will be faced of having the 30 trusted members increasing and creating a gap.

Edit: just to clarify these 30 users will act as the new default trust and the rest of the trust system will remain the same so these 30 users will be the new level one. Will we keep oldscammertag?

It has been mentioned already, but I see this new system only slightly better than DefaultTrust, but not by much. The trust gap between those 30 people and the rest of the forum members will widen over time.

Newbs can't just arbitrarily trust someone they haven't done transactions with or read enough posts to determine who to trust. If they're being forced to pick someone, they'll just pick these "default" suggested 30 people. In principle, see how this is not much different than the current DefaultTrust list? These 30 people will get free boosts without actually having to do anything, they're just simply riding on their preexisting reputation.

That's why I suggest to show not the 30 best, but 30 among the X best.



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

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.
And do/should newbies trust anyone?

Yes, but my point is that if those are the only 30 displayed they will be the ones getting funneled all of the new user trust (increasing their trust rating) and it will be an endless cycle of more people trusting them producing a huge rift, and basically just reproducing the default trust list in a slightly modified form.

The trust depth is still set at 2. Those 30 people have other people in their trust lists.

In that case all this will do is ensure those 30 users will get high trust rankings and everyone else will be left in the dust. This as you describe it is just another form of the default trust list with a small amount of potential randomization.

But that's not the case right now, the same 30 users are always shown.

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?

Randomizing it within a list of people that meet the basic requirements ensures some users aren't displayed more often than others ensuring that statistically people even picking users at random, those on the displayed list will still get trusted more and therefore more trust points.

Over all I think this is moving in the right direction, but the exclusions almost have the same polar opposite effect as the existing default trust list, only via exclusion instead of inclusion. Having higher ranked users override the trust of others that are trusted pretty much keeps the default trust in effect in that sense. Basically, some one could contribute a lot to the community, but if one person with lots of trust excludes them, then all the lower ranked trusts are overridden, basically negating the decentralized component.

BTW: I'll probably keep the default trust depth at 2 after this change, which will cause ratings to travel further than they do now. Trust exclusions will be more important.

For example, if someone trusts CanaryInTheMine, then they'll also trust CanaryInTheMine(0) -> bitpop(1) -> El Cabron(2). But if someone trusts both me and CanaryInTheMine, then they'll get theymos(0) -> El Cabron(1), which will exclude El Cabron because it is at a lower depth. I think that this sort of thing will cause the trust system to function more naturally.

That's what I think.

I can make it so people won't have their vote counted if they've only ever used the checkbox thing for modifying their trust list. The suggested people will still have an advantage, but hopefully it should be surmountable.

I don't think most people will actively modify their list.  They will choose it once, when they are forced to, and forget about it.

The top people will eventually pull away from everyone else.

Such an important decision shouldn't be pressed on users right when they join, IMO.

That's my opinion as well, although I concede it's an improvement over the current DefaultTrust as people will have to manually choose who they trust. I'm not sure how randomizing the list helps though, since the page will be displayed only once.

Instead of showing always the 30 best scorers, an alternative would be to show some random 30 among the 50 top, so people blindly ticking all the boxes don't end up trusting the same set of users.

Actually he wouldn't since he isn't in the top 30.

I'd expect the list to change fairly dramatically once people need to make their own lists instead of relying on default trust though.

I like it. Most people aren't going to stop using default until they have to.


Only if they stay on their lists, and if they do stay on it, then they deserve it don't they?

The only problem I see with this system is the top xx people will continue to gain more trust and will pull ahead of the rest of the users.  You're basically replacing the DefaultTrust with those people.

I never stopped supporting the forum. "The forum" stopped supporting me.