Topic: Trust Feature idea: give DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT - page 6. (Read 2019 times)

I also believe I know why this came up, and it's a noble suggestion.  I'm not sure if complicating the system any more is a good idea.

The trust system seems complicated enough, imagine being a fresh newbie trying to navigate through it.  Adding complexities isn't always the best strategy.
 The flag system already works that way, and it seems like it's too complex to reach it's potential.  The majority of petty scammers target newbies, who don't know how to use the flag system, if they even know it exists.

If up-voting/down-voting of feedback ends up working anything like inclusions/exclusions, which many people think is to be used like their Facebook Friends list the system will be corrupted in short order.

As for the reasons for this suggestion, I think people should be held accountable for their actions.  If someone is abusing their position of power by using it to punish those with whom he has petty squabbles, he shouldn't be in that position of power.  Even if that person has done good in the past, and may continue to do so, there's an obligation to prevent the abuse of power.

I have a simpler solution; build your trust list the way you feel is right, and also enable viewing of "untrusted" feedback and give each of those reviews the weight they deserve.  

I think I know why this suggestion came about, and on its face it seems like a decent idea as long as the requirement to have a certain number of "downvotes" is in place before the feedback isn't shown by default.  But the thing is, this generally isn't a problem that DT trust is so incredibly wrong that other DT members need to act on it.  There have been instances of that, for sure, but it isn't a chronic problem.  And if there's a DT member who's consistently leaving obviously wrong feedback, that member is going to get removed eventually.

That said, I don't like having to counter feedback.  It's annoying and it would be nice if there was some mechanism that would make it unnecessary.  We've now got the flag system, and those flags can be supported or opposed.  Why not be able to support or oppose trust feedbacks?

Every feedback could be voted on like a flag but with a lower standard
where it would be active as long as the support/oppose is any positive # (or 0?) like DT1..

OK idea but it might even further devalue feedback..


Still I am for higher standards for DT than simply "good outweighs the bad" like..
and

if you blacklisted lauda and friends this would work,but if not they will use this to hide their abuses.

The idea of making orange feedbacks black if it's negligible is better than this IMHO. Making positive and negative feedbacks compensate is to be considered too like for example user X have Y positive feedbacks,if he is given a negative one, it becomes Y-1 and of course make it in a way that only 1 feedback from 1 same user gets taken in account.

I like your idea because of the following reason:

Bitcointalk will get another "problem" in a few years: inactive users on DT (1 or 2) whose feedback was (and is) still very valuable for the community but sometimes for single cases not accurate anymore because issues are solved or accounts are getting hacked etc.. If an account on DT is inactive and some feedbacks are getting inaccurate we have to decide: leave them on DT including all inaccurate feedbacks or remove all of his feedbacks by removing them from DT completely. Both variants aren't a good solution in my opinion.
An example: Zepher's negative rating left on sportsbet.io's account:

Multiple scam accusations against this casino in the scam section. The reference linked shows them withholding 21.5 BTC, of which 15 BTC was a deposit with 6.5 BTC winnings. Sportsbet have not paid out the 21.5 BTC, nor even returned the original deposit of 15 BTC. I would advise against playing at this casino until all allegations are fully resolved.

AFAIK the scam accusations are resolved:

Sportsbet.io has been resolved the accusation about 15 BTC which was mentioned by @Zepher & @Lutpin negative feedback's. So ignore both negative feedback's about that accusation and read reference link for better understand. Zepher is no more ( Hope he is in Haven) and Lutpin is very inactive, so feedback's couldn't delete or edit right now. I am bothering to leave this feedback since people's raising questions about resolved issue.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=832366

I think the outcome is a litte bit confusing for all readers and sportsbet.io has (to be accurate two) outdated ratings which are not relevant anymore. To keep such valuable users on DT while ensuring the inaccurate ones can be removed, OP's suggestion is a good idea.

That's only one case where a feedback isn't accurate anymore and I'm 100% sure that will happen much more often when Bitcointalk gets older. So at least for such cases I like OP's suggestion.

---

+1
Limits for downvoted vs. upvoted feedbacks should be high to prevent abuse.

This was my first thought too. What's to stop someone deleting a "downvoted" rating and just reposting it? It would be an endless game of cat and mouse, unless you were to completely remove said user's ability to leave feedback for certain accounts, but doing so would make said accounts potentially easier to scam with if certain DT users can't leave trust ratings on them. There's a big can of worms here.

I'm also not sure I want to be able to have the power, either individually or as part of a small group, to effectively approve or disprove every single trust rating.

I don't see censoring feedback is a good thing. If a DT member leaves bad feedback he can/should be voted off DT.

I might be wrong, but I think that it would create even more drama than we have right now or under old version of trust system. Probably it's impossible to make perfect trust system here which would be good for everyone...
Though, @LFC_Bitcoin idea looks good for me.

The idea of downvoting a default trust looks good to me. Instead of asking to remove someone's personal opinion it's better to move it to untrusted feedback with some voting.

-What if someone does a thing in future and the same person marks him again. Will it go as untrusted or trusted feedback?


Even better I guess.

I like the effort and intent here for sure, but you know what they say about the road to hell. This one I don't think is a winner. Keep trying

Perhaps requiring maybe 5 DT members to agree with a down vote before confirming it would be a good idea.

5 DT’s agree & click down vote ensures potentially harsh or unfair neg is not shown by default.

I might indeed be terribly naive here

While I like the intent here, I get the distinct impression that this kind of feature would be used to not only cement in controlling groups within the trust system, it would also relieve pressure from users to act on abusers of the trust system while still leaving them the ability to abuse their authority. I can easily see this ending up being a clusterfuck of selective application and driving even more clique like group think as the popular/suck ups get taken care of while the ones that do their own thing get neglected.

I strongly believe that what I wrote in LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system can contribute to improving this forum, if enough people follow these guidelines. However, that's not happening, and I see more and more well-known users get tagged for petty things.

The current solution is to exclude them from your Trust list, but that "removes" all their feedback, and many users (including myself) seem unwilling to exclude a user based on the 1% or less feedback that they disagree with.
Some users have been posting "counter ratings": a positive feedback to point out they disagree with a negative feedback, but this still doesn't remove the orange negative number from their profile.

I've tried Just a thought: make orange and green feedback black if it's a small percentage., but that topic seems to have been forgotten.

So here's a new suggestion: would it be possible to give DT1 the power to "downvote" certain (negative) feedbacks so they are no longer shown by default? That could potentially solve many of the current disputes that have been fought through negative feedback for many months.
I'm not sure if this "voting" should be anonymous or public, unlimited or very strictly reserved for very rare occations, and needs just one or a majority vote, but all that can be figured out later if Admin thinks my idea has any merit.