Topic: Replacing DefaultTrust - page 9. (Read 16259 times)

Why would you need the trust system?
So why would it matter if someone you don't necessarily trust showed up "green" in this system?

I've said it before: the trust system should not be for those of us who are old/experienced enough to know what we're doing.
It should raise the awareness of new users and warn them to be cautious when someone offers them a seemingly great deal.

The system I propose would probably do the trick with a low level of abuse. If somebody really gamed the system, "we" would notice and should leave him negative feedback, which would easily counter his efforts.

Thats a bit broad isnt it? I dont trust all Sr. Members alike. In fact the rank has very little to do with the amount of trust a person deserves in my opinion. The rank just says: has been here long, posts a lot. Thats not what makes someone trustworthy, at least not in my book. It could also be gamed / bought. It would certainly raise the price of Sr. and higher ranks which might make this infeasible.

How about a much more straightforward approach?

Get rid of the trust list, just treat each and every feedback the same, but weighted by the rank of the person who gave the feedback.
E.g.:
Newbie: x0
Jr.: x0
Full.: x0
Sr.: x1
Hero: x2
Legendary: x4
Staff: x8
(or whatever)

Give users the option to change these settings, i.e. one might chose to ignore ratings from anything below Hero and set Hero to x100, Legendary x1000 and Staff x0 (if they don't like staff) ;-)

That way, it'll be difficult to gather a lot of "fake" feedback, and it will be easy to counter by a small number of more experienced users.

Thats why you get rid of red and green ratings and have everyone make custom trust lists. There is no reason anyone needs to preemptively destroy a users reputation even if they are highly suspected of scamming. This preemptive "scambusting" mentality has done more damage to this community than it has helped. Also, this is what the neutral ratings are for, for people to comment about suspected scams and the like without effecting trust ratings.

Yes, we can update BTC section if we want and we can update feedback by saying did multiples trades. But multiple feedback give more value suddenly, that's why it's not look good on trust system.
I do lot's of trade. And even I gave once feedback even they always again ask feedback for every trade.
I don't think if we already gave feedback it will be necessary. One feedback each account will fulfill the requirement of true Trust system.

Then what happens when I agree to a trade with a newb and he doesn't pay or tries to scam? I leave negative then he returns the favour? This retaliatory feedback is what used to happen on ebay but now only buyers can leave feedback but then they often just leave negative for the slightest of things and it'll happen here. You can agree to sell something to a newbie and then what's to stop him from leaving feedback for no valid reason? This system also won't stop scammers and warn others before they scam and it's too late after they do.

Then you're weighting multiple successful trades the same as one.

I will suggest just 1 thing. That is we will allow only to give 1 feedback each account not like multiple feedback.
Taking feedback from same person multiply times rating increase so much and don't give true sense.

So better if it will only give us chance to feedback once.We will able to  update/modify that if we want but not multiply the feedback many times.

I think your 'trust escrow' approach is a good idea and mutual pre-agreement would prevent abusing the system as an 'I don't like you' (un)popularity contest.

IMO, removing the default trust list, and creating some sort of system to have BOTH users agree to a transaction before any trust ratings that can effect your trust score can be left would go a long way in doing this. People would still be able to comment on your trust page with neutrals, but it would not impact your trust rating. This 100% ensures only directly involved individuals in a transaction have the power to damage another persons trust score. Furthermore it may even be good policy to require users post the agreement first and reference during this mutual agreement function it so any disputes can be arbitrated based only upon the agreement the two entered into.

One problem with the trust system that would be great to try and solve it retaliation feedback. Often times people are afraid to leave someone who they think is untrustworthy negative feedback because that person has DefaultTrust and a high trust score and they fear retaliation negative feedback. I'm not sure of a good way of mitigating this, but it would be very useful.

Yay , Really happy to see that some people actually like my idea <3
thanks mate , appreciate it
who knows , maybe the developpers of the new forum software will take it seriously and add it 

I like this idea , every feedback ( positive , neutral and negative) will appear under your forum username. It will be a new transparent  trust system  , and why not  "visible in all the forum board".

Some kind of mutually agreed upon agreement to enter into an exchange before being able to leave trade related trust ratings might VASTLY reduce problems with trust. Some other neutral type rating could be reserved for preemptive warnings or notes about abuse from uninvolved parties.

I found it not bad at all , pretty good idea .
But if you ask me , I would totally change it and make everyone able to rate .
Basically each user have the following on their profil and we should add "Request Trade" so we know that they really made a thread by giving a reference link or something .

Marketplace :  0/0/0  (Positive/Neutral/Negative)
Everyone who is "Sr.Member" or above can rate the other users  (so less abusing on the system).

I share the concern that the list of suggestions is too easy to game. Others have mentioned it before, but I didn't see the issue being addressed anywhere. There are already entities "farming" signature campaigns with multiple accounts. There will be entities seeding feedback to several accounts to get themselves on the suggested list. Legendary / Hero accounts are for sale.

New users are the easy fruit for scammers. New users are most likely to use the suggested list. Thus it becomes very attractive to get yourself in the suggested list. You target audience will actually be encouraged to trust you by the system!

So, I'm voting for the current default trust system.

Edit: I would like to note that the difference between feedback (I trust/do not trust this account) and trust lists (I want to see who this person trusts / doesn't trust) seems difficult to grasp for some people. Maybe we should just get rid of Default Trust. If a user has an empty trust list then consider all feedback "untrusted".

The only issue I see once some picks a person. If that person falls from grace. What than? You have thousands of people with them ticked,  and most won't know to remove him or her.
Sorry if mentioned, I read the 7 pages quickly buta have misses.it.
reading off.phone

John K is on the list, he's 3rd?

Great! I'm having trouble finding the settings so that my customized posts won't be indexed by non-users such as search engines. Also, I desire to set some settings so that those who speak ill of me in their customized posts are also not indexable, as I'm sure others desire to have access to them same settings.

I'm having a tad bit of trouble getting my heard wrapped around as to how the thousands of negative trust comments penned by those who've taking their valuable time to warn the Bitcoin community and others worldwide of nefarious activities stemming from bad actors is compressed while BCT benefits via the sale of ads to some of the very same bad actors.

Ergo, it reads to me that this trust thingy is only benefiting our little club here, doing a grave disservice to the rest of the world stumbling upon bad actors because due to somebody's infinite wisdom the vital information needed for them to make an informed decision was nowhere to be found unless they came here and read such under an ad espousing the very entity we're trying to warned them about, e.g., GAW comes to mind, of which I'm sure you've heard of them.

For a prime example, here's an entity with 4,059 negative comments that placed an ad or two on this forum: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bfl-44366



Is it possible that nary a one of them 4,059 posters cared less if the search engines indexed their customized comments or not as long as we in our own little club here are made aware, or did a majority of them now falsely assumed that their vital comments about a bad actor would be available to most anybody outside the BCT Country Club? I'm safely assuming it's the latter, probably not giving it a second thought that their comments would be available on the entire internet, them having complete faith in the administrators of this forum that such was truly the case, again, never taking the time to think otherwise.

Thus, by your comment, the trust system thingy was broken, and that this aspect in question will remain in place regardless of what the new trust system thingy will be, correct?

Will the new trust system thingy have its comments like the following found elsewhere on the internet?: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Failure+to+refund+and+deliver+product+for+over+1+year.+Lies+continually+about+availability+of+their+products.%22

Also, some people who I consider very trustworthy, like DannyHamilton, John K, or DeathAndTaxes didn't make the list simply because they don't spam up every thread with their unsolicited opinion like I do