Topic: Should we rename Trust list to Feedback list? (Read 423 times)

You don't want to add anything essential here in addition to your shitpost?!

Just imagine if everyone starts spamming the title of a topic + YES / NO on every thread

Que: Should we rename Trust list to Feedback list?
Ans: NO

Yeah that's true, good point. They'll be still DT2. 
The only difference we would have in a randomized DT1 selection process are that ratings left by DT2 Members are possibly not displayed by default all the time, when "their" DT1 member gets removed.

I can really imagine that would work and could be a solution because DT will get more members every adjustment period. Members are receiving constantly Merit while the requirements stay the same (10 / 250 Merit). And people are adding custom trust lists (even if it's not much) what's increasing members on DT1, too.

May not be, if the system is followed correctly.
You are supposed to read feedback (trusted + untrusted) before doing the trade  and if you find some user whose feedback can be trusted coming as "untrusted" feedback to you then you will just add that user to your trust list.

Secondly, Somebody dropped from DT1 due to rotation can still be in DT2.

Quite surprising for me, I thought the weeks after the trust changes caused some interest in setting up a customized trust list...
And a few of the accounts with trust list are most likely sockpuppets of cryptohunter. 

---

Could be another improvement to show the trust list on-site, although I like your Trust list viewer. On-site it's only possible to see someones trust list if you add the account as only entry in your Trust list and his trust list will show up as your depth 1. (But it's not recommended to try as DT1 member. 

Interesting idea, adding a bit randomness to the selection process would be nice. But it's also possible for scammers to get rid of their tags for a while if the account gets removed that tagged him. And all the complaints every new selection period. But would be funny, let's have a try. 

The names are indeed confusing, and renaming it to "Feedback" could be a good start.
The Trust summary for instance has "Trusted feedback", "Untrusted feedback" and "Sent feedback".

I like to put it like this, where I already used the word "Feedback" to avoid confusion:

The official description under Trust settings is this:
From what I've read, I think it's more likely theymos will limit the number of DT1 by random selection. Increasing Merit requirements would make it very difficult for new users to reach DT1 a few years from now.

Exactly! You spoke my mind and certainly the minds of majority here. Trust has been turned to a clique circus. Rub my back and I rub yours kind of arrangement. The same way the Merit system works now. That's why I don't just give a damn about them.

It even baffles me when some DT members have to tag someone because of what they perceive in their wisdom (wrongly though) as spamming. That isn't what Trust is about. But then being a DT member doesn't automatically bestow wisdom on anyone.

There are currently (as of last Saturday) 4.203 Customized Trust Lists. Over the last month, just over 30 new ones have been created, and the figure is just north of 300 new custom lists since the announced DT changes from back in early January 2019. It is really a minority of people who undergo the process of creating their own list, and natural growth seems very limited on its own.

Although I (think I) recall reading that Custom Trust Lists may be enforced at some point, I don’t really see how the custom trust list can be successfully and coherently extended as a general practice, as I’d say most people don’t know about it, don’t care about it, and don’t "know" enough forum members to assert a certain trust in their judgment, and therefore add them to their list.

It’s an interesting resource that works (with it’s ups and downs) and provides certain red light/green light indicators that are valuable, but the vast majority will likely be happy with using DT at best, and even confiding in DT criteria over their own.

Summary:

when personal trust lists are somehow "enforced" then the whole DT system should be disabled, there isn't much benefit of setting up a personal list when the majority of members use DT.

i agree with the requirement thing, it's either increasing the number of members or the merit number itself.  i am not sure if that would make things better or worse, but it will surely shorten the DT list.

Yes, if someone understands how the system works, the name wouldn't confuse them. But if someone doesn't know about the trust system in detail (feedback, trust list, nomination process, exclusion process and so on) the name can confuse them. Or at least the name would point out what's the intention of the trust list and clear doubts or result in people searching more information about the trust system.
I can also imagine that a link to a complete trust system guide (or FAQ) on everyone's trust page would be beneficial to help people understand the trust system.


In fact, it's still very unclear to some members that there were big changes of the trust system and setting up a good trust list is much more important than it was back then when people never expected to get DT1 (or even DT2) because the system was so static.
Setting up a good trust list is essential now for everyone even if someone is not on DT1. The fact that DT1 is selected in a completely new way now since January makes a big difference because it's much easier to get on DT1 and their trust list will make everyone to DT2.


Oh, I think most cases are because people have outdated trust lists they set up long ago when they knew it's impossible to get on DT1 (if they knew even what's DT). And personally, I don't know any case where people intentionally "confused" trust list and feedback to abuse the system when they got DT without involving Merit abuse or other clear patterns to point out their abuse. Or in other words: speculating to say it was confusion of the trust list would be pointless because it's possible to detect the abuse otherwise.


Agreed, personal trust lists are important to set up and to participate actively in the new trust system. But it's also no secret that more people with trust lists will result in a bigger DT1 (and DT2). Adjusting the number of 250-Merit votes and 10-Merit votes would be an easy measure to change the total number of DT1 members (if DT gets too big).

I doubt that the "name" is what confuses some members, it's rather the concept, many members do not understand that you don't need to necessary trust someone to have them on your trust list, or trusting someone with money but not really trust their feedback.

but i am almost certain that the majority of those with custom trust list understand this, and most deny that fact when they are cough red-handed doing something shady like adding everyone who left them a positive feedback to their trust list just to increase their trust score.

as far the trust system goes in general, i think number 1 priority is to try to somehow push everyone to start using custom list, specially now that DT list is way too large it could only get less accurate at some point and everyone needs to learn how to make their own list specially after having spent sometime on the forum and learned whose feedback is to be trusted.

 

Those people are not using the trust list the way it's intended.  Feedback is what you leave for people with whom you have conducted successful trades.  The trust list should only include those users who's feedback you find valuable, and who's judgment you find trustworthy.  The two might overlap, but they are not same thing.

The name Trust list is not really reflecting the purpose of that list to add people on it where you think their feedback is useful, correct and valuable for the community and should be displayed by default. Most people use their trust list to list trading partners there or other people they trust, what's in most cases not harmful or at least useless but in some cases also dangerous.

So, why not renaming Trust list to Feedback list to make the meaning clearer?

Trust is a very controversial topic and renaming one simple word could already save us from most misunderstandings or other trouble resulting from it.