Topic: Suggestion: length limitation to trust ratings (Read 1078 times)

Bumping for my request above
I ran into this limitation again today. I have to choose beetween a decent layout, or all the characters I want.

I have a request @theymos: can you allow 600 characters and up to 5 lines (4 newlines)?
I was trying to leave this feedback:
This was too long. I had already used the "Reference link field" for another link (see here), but couldn't add the last line to my feedback.

And while you're at it: can you make "Comments:" field a lot less high? It now gives the impression you can post 15 lines.

what about spamming the same feedback? 

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/alexandrbelres-2156763

For feedback longer than the 600 characters, I prefer that you consolidate it into posts somewhere. Even if the comments are good, long comments kind of monopolize the page.


If anyone runs into it and thinks that they should be allowed to continue, PM me and I'll think about the issue more. I could whitelist certain individuals, or I could make it expand significantly at higher ranks.

Can the three times activity be increased maybe with the rank?

Some people are near to the cap https://bpip.org/r/trustsent.aspx

Can "Edit" option also given in trust feedback. Currently it is only "Delete".  If something got missed then no need to delete and rewrite again, just edit it.

I think the limit is fair enough for newcommers (unless of course they are "new" with an alt account). You really won't end up tagging activityInOneYear * 3 users so quickly.

In my experience describing it in the format that I've quoted is much better. We already link to the reference post or thread; if this remains unchanged then there will be somewhat of a generalization of abuse (e.g. "many alt accounts" for users that used 30 and those that used 60 - which is twice the abuse).

Thanks for getting on this case.
So if he comes back after the 14 days ban and doing that again he get an perma Ban ?

If this isn't changed, then simply start a locked thread in archival where you post the list of linked accounts and include a link to relevant post in the feedback.


There was a guy just a few weeks ago (I forget the name and would have no desire to link to him even if I remembered) who was leaving trust ratings with blatantly NSFW pages as reference links.

It wasn't. I've complained in this thread that mine was shorter and I somehow felt "less hung"

Completely off-topic here.

I guess that depends upon the jurisdiction of the poster and "postee".

If by "abusing" you mean abuse in a way that's likely to be moderated, yes, that seems to be the case.

I consider that a viable alternative to "trust by default" or "innocent until proven guilty".
We're not talking of hard sanctions here, after all.
Being flagged "red" on an online forum doesn't really do much more than hurt your feelings, so we don't have to apply the same standards as in court.

Weighing the possible alternatives, i.e. more people being scammed or more people "going ballistic", I prefer the latter.

I was not aware this was on your own profile.

However, your latest red trusting of a vip member without proving it is hacked is going to I'm sure result in some tags. That does not look like a clear cut hacked account at all. Neutral should be enough to relay the message you believe it "could" be under new control.

Also the inclusions you have made on DT raises some eyebrows from several members.

Yes of course death threats and clear hate crimes are not allowed. Those things are actually illegal are they not?  the forums rules are the last thing you would worry about if you were posting those threats.

Anyway thanks for answer. The only way to abuse the trust system currently is spamming it or death threats.

I hope we can improve this in the future so that it is more about trust and something people can use as an indication before starting a trade.

I mean it is feasible that theymos wants everyone to have some red so that all traders are terrified of trading and take all possible precautions with every trade regardless of who it is.  That could be a smart move to stop scammers but still it will result in people who feel wronged (rightly so from a moralistic pov) going ballistic when they first spot their red .

That's obviously a real problem.
A limit tied to activity will prevent "youngsters" from becoming spam cops.
I guess theymos should be able to apply a manual override of the limitations when needed, though.

Being banned for 14 days means just that.
After 14 days, he's welcome to come back and post new negative feedback on my profile.

I wonder if there is some "content" that you could post in a trust rating that would obviously not be allowed.
Death threats come to mind, so that's probably something that will lead to ratings being deleted.
Anything else is probably more or less fine

This is a valid point raised by lauda.

Perhaps in  your case best to revise 2100/2101 - theymos can you take care of that for asap in the interest of the entire forum.

Imagine the damage another 2k + red to persons telling the truth about you can do to the forum

Excellent.

Pro: New accounts can't go on insane spam trips.
Con: Could hit rating. ~2100*3 = 6300. I'm at ~4k sent now.

I believe that this is going to cause some issues with ratings such as:
This is ~1.7k characters. Maybe add another step (e.g. after X rank and Y merit increase limit to 4-5k characters).

Fair enough.. it was perhaps an extreme way of presenting his objection.

But surely  he will be allowed to replace some of the red trust within the new conditions you have set.

It was the manner/ format and extreme nature of presenting his message that got him banned ... am I correct?

If he was to only leave a max of 5 then he would be allowed to do so?

I have not examined his cased deeply but it seems to me that you can get red trust for anything including enjoying the taste of a lemon or even telling the truth about a person lying previously. So the only possible way to abuse the system at this point seems to be spamming it as you have just said.

Can you consider adding some criteria for red trust that must be met so we can prevent persons who feel they have been treated unfairly being a little to enthusiastic in highlighting their plight?

I mean surely you can understand that if you mention you like lemons or you tell the truth that someone has lied previously (yet they continue to call you a liar over and over and will not provide evidence to demonstrate this) after spending years building an account here just to get a big red flashing sign that you are a scammer it will evoke an extreme reaction?

Imagine further the very people permitted to ruin your account are proven untrustworthy beyond doubt in the first place.

You must see this is not going to work out and will get worse as more and more persons feel (rightly so in many cases) that people proven as liars or to be using sock puppets to sig spam racist trolling are then allowed to cast out punishment on their "suspicions" untrustworthy related behaviour.

Why not introduce some criteria to DT that prevents the entire place going crazy. Bans will not even work against people that feel enraged by injustice. I see it all getting worse.

Great. Thanks. It'd be great is someone checks current trust spam. For example the system could find cases where someone left more than 500 or 1k lines of trust to a single profile and check those cases manually.
(Moseas79, Buzzlieve1992, among several others)

No, that was a clear case of trust spam. 200+ very similar ratings with many against the same users over and over again. He's banned for 14 days.

These new restrictions are not retroactive.

Well just the ones that do not conform to the new standards. I suspect he will re apply those in a more sensible/accurate manner soon.

OK, new limits:
 - You can't give more than 5 ratings to a single user.
 - Your total sent ratings is limited to three times your activity, but at least 1.
 - The comment length is limited to 600 characters, but each newline counts as 120 characters.