Topic: Suggestion: length limitation to trust ratings (Read 1080 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.

His ratings just got wiped.

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.

My suggestion of 20 was rather generous, yes.

I think what cryptohunter really wants is to make me the lead trust moderator of this forum.

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 !

Right.  

I still don't see a good enough reason for why one needs to give more than 5 legitimate feedbacks, let alone 10.

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.

Really? why is that?

He did; we discovered an unusual case of >2k ratings sent by a single user due to new features introducted to BPIP.

NOPE!  BAD idea, very bad idea.

This place will become into a absolute shithole if that ever happens, because of obvious reasons.

Didn't he delete some spam-feedback a while ago?

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.

They don't go away, AFAIK.

Nope its different, technically. No one has ever been banned for this, from what I can remember.

I think Lauda's idea to limit the number of feedbacks is more than enough, besides, people can delete and repost their feedbacks anyways. 

We need a trust mod, but who would trust the trust mod?

How exactly is this a good idea? Mistakes tend to happen when writing or submitting feedback, thus I sometimes send out a rating to a specific user multiple times in a very small timeframe.

He only acts upon it in very extreme cases.

Isn't such behavior simply spam? And doesn't spam qualify for .. ban?


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.

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.

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
However there's a lot of spam and very little is being done.

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.

No.

Lines are limited to 3998, characters to 4998 (iirc)

---

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?

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? 

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.

Limits for thee, but no limits for me.

I guess he want's to say someone is spreading FUD.

What "fudder" means?

I think there is another meaning different from what Urban Dictionary says. =)

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).

It would be nice if have a limit 2-3 lines for leaving trust rating, not exceeding by that.

Or newbie accounts will allow to leave trust ratings 1 line only.
And Jr. member to Member rank 1-2 line allowed, it is good?

My guess that trust spammers are a sock puppet on a single person.

You just added to Jet Cash's ignore list 

If it was possible that after a member red tagged him/her for an offense any other member red tagging him/her for that same offense should just come under the former and not having another box of its own. It was clear he/she was red tagged severally for same offense.
Also after seeing the first five you already sure this is a no go area account in terms of any dealings

Tbh, I'm just jealous that I've got a shorter one

Or just showing the two first lines followed by a "view more" button.
Sometimes, it is useful to leave a long feedback .

Red tag the guy for trust spamming.

LOL that was a quite long feedback  
Limiting only number of lines may work fine.

PS: Did you notice - he started with few lines then he multiplied it for the next one and the next one LOL

Quite simply, I find reading trust ratings like the one below tiresome.
I suggest limiting the allowed number of characters and newlines.

Example: from the Trust summary for arguelles84.
And yes, that's a single rating for a single user.