Topic: Suggestion: length limitation to trust ratings - page 2. (Read 1078 times)
His ratings just got wiped.
He did; we discovered an unusual case of >2k ratings sent by a single user due to new features introducted to BPIP.
Right. I still don't see a good enough reason for why one needs to give more than 5 legitimate feedbacks, let alone 10.
Really? why is that?
I see things going two ways:- The trust mod abuses his power, and until things get resolved, the whole forum would be upside down.
- The trust mod does his job, and some people would just create a fucking myriad of accounts , try to defame him in every way possible, and one mod won't be able to handle every single scenario instantaneously,people will start raging. And besides, he'd act based on his opinions, and a lot of people won't like his judgement regardless of the fact that however fair he is in terms of trust moderation.
Bring the criteria that enforces fair and honest actions to all, bring the power to remove persons that do not operate within those criteria and anyone can be the trust moderator. I would suggest someone such as myself who is not a proven liar and always takes the fairest actions. One that can be demonstrated over and over in many projects to oppose those greedy and power hungry. One that can back everything he says with facts and forms opinions only based on sensible analysis of those facts. Failing that then I have a few legends in mind for the job that have demonstrated they are fair in the past.
To be sensible though this criteria can be enforced at a DT level so hardly a need for trust moderator.
He did; we discovered an unusual case of >2k ratings sent by a single user due to new features introducted to BPIP.
Right. I still don't see a good enough reason for why one needs to give more than 5 legitimate feedbacks, let alone 10.
Really? why is that?
I see things going two ways:- The trust mod abuses his power, and until things get resolved, the whole forum would be upside down.
- The trust mod does his job, and some people would just create a fucking myriad of accounts , try to defame him in every way possible, and one mod won't be able to handle every single scenario instantaneously,people will start raging. And besides, he'd act based on his opinions, and a lot of people won't like his judgement regardless of the fact that however fair he is in terms of trust moderation.
He did; we discovered an unusual case of >2k ratings sent by a single user due to new features introducted to BPIP.
Right. I still don't see a good enough reason for why one needs to give more than 5 legitimate feedbacks, let alone 10.
Really? why is that?
I see things going two ways:- The trust mod abuses his power, and until things get resolved, the whole forum would be upside down.
- The trust mod does his job, and some people would just create a fucking myriad of accounts , try to defame him in every way possible, and one mod won't be able to handle every single scenario instantaneously,people will start raging. And besides, he'd act based on his opinions, and a lot of people won't like his judgement regardless of the fact that however fair he is in terms of trust moderation.
This is exactly why subjectivity can not be allowed to remain. There needs to be a drill down and down and down until you are left with a list of criteria that decides the action. You can not leave it up to one persons own subjective ideas because whether they like it or not they are prone to moods, and other human emotion that will at times lead them to make unfair and inconsistent judgements. For grey areas or special circumstances there will always need human intervention but for 99% of clear cases where criteria met/not met can be the deciding factor (which would eliminate most trust abuse and inconsistent action/inaction) then these criteria should be used.
I agree you would need more than 1 trust mod. If they have not done anything wrong then they will not be getting defamed. We need to stick to analysing facts and observable events not groundless hearsay and opinions.
Is there something we can do about this user arguelles84 https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/arguelles84-298715 ?
He writes now everyday a few feedbacks on everybody !
I dont care about that realy , just wanted to know maybe there is something we or and Admin can do for this obvious abuse !
He writes now everyday a few feedbacks on everybody !
I dont care about that realy , just wanted to know maybe there is something we or and Admin can do for this obvious abuse !
He did; we discovered an unusual case of >2k ratings sent by a single user due to new features introducted to BPIP.
Right. I still don't see a good enough reason for why one needs to give more than 5 legitimate feedbacks, let alone 10.
Really? why is that?
I see things going two ways:- The trust mod abuses his power, and until things get resolved, the whole forum would be upside down.
- The trust mod does his job, and some people would just create a fucking myriad of accounts , try to defame him in every way possible, and one mod won't be able to handle every single scenario instantaneously,people will start raging. And besides, he'd act based on his opinions, and a lot of people won't like his judgement regardless of the fact that however fair he is in terms of trust moderation.
We need a trust mod, but who would trust the trust mod?
NOPE! BAD idea, very bad idea. This place will become into a absolute shithole if that ever happens, because of obvious reasons.
Really? why is that?
He only acts upon it in very extreme cases.
Didn't he delete some spam-feedback a while ago?We need a trust mod, but who would trust the trust mod?
NOPE! BAD idea, very bad idea. This place will become into a absolute shithole if that ever happens, because of obvious reasons.
He only acts upon it in very extreme cases.
Didn't he delete some spam-feedback a while ago?Instead of limit , a trust feedback cool down meter can be implemented. You can give only one feedback a day to a specific user. This will help in reducing trust spamming where a user is giving 50 long feedback in a day to a single user.
For length, I like the idea of view more, or fix the length of trust feedback and user who like to write more can create a post and link to the feedback.
There have been instances where shills log in every day, just to give spam-feedback to those who they despise so badly. So your idea might not really end up working. For length, I like the idea of view more, or fix the length of trust feedback and user who like to write more can create a post and link to the feedback.
semi OT question, What if mods nuke/ban this account? Will the feedbacks go away too?
They don't go away, AFAIK. Isn't such behavior simply spam? And doesn't spam qualify for .. ban?
Nope its different, technically. No one has ever been banned for this, from what I can remember. semi OT question, What if mods nuke/ban this account? Will the feedbacks go away too?
I think that it'll stay. So somehow it has to be limited or maybe somebody should be allowed to edit = shorten that mess, else anybody can create more newbie accounts just to fill the forum with garbage.
We need a trust mod, but who would trust the trust mod?
While we are at it, why not limit the number of negative ratings that one user can give to another? Some sane limit e.g. 20 would be sufficient (AFAIK there has been no case where 10 was legitimately hit let alone more).
Instead of limit, a trust feedback cool down meter can be implemented. You can give only one feedback a day to a specific user. This will help in reducing trust spamming where a user is giving 50 long feedback in a day to a single user.For length, I like the idea of view more, or fix the length of trust feedback and user who like to write more can create a post and link to the feedback.
-snip-
Theymos has explicitly said
He only acts upon it in very extreme cases. Theymos has explicitly said
Trust spam isn't allowed
However there's a lot of spam and very little is being done.
Example: from the Trust summary for arguelles84.
And yes, that's a single rating for a single user.
~~
And yes, that's a single rating for a single user.
~~
Isn't such behavior simply spam? And doesn't spam qualify for .. ban?
semi OT question, What if mods nuke/ban this account? Will the feedbacks go away too?
I think that it'll stay. So somehow it has to be limited or maybe somebody should be allowed to edit = shorten that mess, else anybody can create more newbie accounts just to fill the forum with garbage.
snip-
Theymos has explicitly said
I noticed that usually, trust spammers are those newbies and Jr. members rank especially if their main account/s have tagged by DT members. I guess they are using or create a new one alt account to spam trust who DT's tagged them.Theymos has explicitly said
Trust spam isn't allowed
However there's a lot of spam and very little is being done.Then, can I suggest that newbies and Jr. member ranks are restricted to leave trust rate unless if they are in Member rank above? or they purchased copper member rank account.
I have suggested this in the past.
There should definitely be some limits on both the number of lines per feedback and the number of times trust is left by someone on the same profile.
For example, the user Moseas79 has left 2,430 lines of trust spam on my profile.
Theymos has explicitly said
There should definitely be some limits on both the number of lines per feedback and the number of times trust is left by someone on the same profile.
For example, the user Moseas79 has left 2,430 lines of trust spam on my profile.
Theymos has explicitly said
Trust spam isn't allowed
However there's a lot of spam and very little is being done. 
While we are at it, why not limit the number of negative ratings that one user can give to another? Some sane limit e.g. 20 would be sufficient (AFAIK there has been no case where 10 was legitimately hit let alone more).
Instead of limit , a trust feedback cool down meter can be implemented. You can give only one feedback a day to a specific user. This will help in reducing trust spamming where a user is giving 50 long feedback in a day to a single user.
For length, I like the idea of view more, or fix the length of trust feedback and user who like to write more can create a post and link to the feedback.
semi OT question, What if mods nuke/ban this account? Will the feedbacks go away too?
No.
Lines are limited to 3998, characters to 4998 (iirc)
I spaded this a while back out of curiosity.
Way too high, obviously.
I spaded this a while back out of curiosity.
Way too high, obviously.
semi OT question, What if mods nuke/ban this account? Will the feedbacks go away too?
Or just showing the two first lines followed by a "view more" button.
Sometimes, it is useful to leave a long feedback .
Agreed. That would solve the problem of long spam feedbacks like OP quoted without reducing the freedom to leave a long feedback when necessary. Why should idiot trust spammers get to take away the ability to write what needs to be written, regardless of how long it is? Sometimes, it is useful to leave a long feedback .
In addition, a trust spammer would be less inclined to write a repeating wall of spam if they knew it wasn't going to show up exactly the way they wrote it on someone's trust page.
Limiting the characters would be enough. Maybe something like 200 characters maximum for one feedback. A feedback is not supposed to tell the complete story behind it, but it should only summarize it so that a person can understand what it states, and if someone finds the need to say more about it, then they should simply write the full story in a text editor, take a snapshot of it and post the link to it in the feedback.
This would probably reduce the feedback spamming that happens right now.
This would probably reduce the feedback spamming that happens right now.
Jump to: