Topic: Trust flags - page 25. (Read 12939 times)

With an active flag it becomes a bit more clear: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/safedice-396610

Curious indeed how it looks if flag but still few (old) positives.

Basically it will take some time for all flags to be made, but should be fine in long-run.

As I've seen some of the users that commited scams doesn't have any Red as of now, and from ehat I'm seeing is that once they have also got a few positive feedbacks they'll have green ones.


All in all, I just still like the previous one  
Now -9999 Trust Scores won't be seen anymore 😂

I wonder which wannabe hacker tried to test some stuff



Seems all good, lol.

I'm starting to dislike that the flags have lots of words in them but no facts (you have to click links to see the supporting info). Not sure how it's gonna end up looking like in the long run but someone with multiple flags might be confusing to figure out. And what if the accuser ninja-edits the thread, that might cause trouble for the supporting DT members.

SafeDice has the honor of being the first to get an active scammer flag: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/safedice-396610


Right, except that they're sorted by activity.

This should reduce the amount of drama around here, by a lot. It should also make the trust system more fair.

---

How is support/opposition to a flag displayed? Are those who are in my trust network always shown in larger font and first, and those outside of my trust network in smaller font and second, and then sorted by UID after determining if a person is in/out of my trust network?

edit:
On the pagination of trust pages, would it be possible to list pages number in a way similar to how page numbers are displayed on threads? If not, can we have a way to skip to the last page? I have a lot of sent trust ratings, and the current implementation makes it difficult to review my recently sent ratings.

Here someone created a contract-violation flag:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=9
Since that's clearly a test account, feel free to support it or oppose it as a test.

Note that right now it's only linked in a small note on the target user's trust page:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817
And listed on their inactive-flags page:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626817;page=iflags
And shown as an entry in the sender's sent ratings:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2626816;page=sent

If it gets enough support, it will no longer be listed in "inactive flags", and will instead move to "active flags".


Correct.

You can create both a newbie-warning and contract-violation flag if you want.


Correct.

Just to confirm, you are not allowed to create a contract violation flag unless you were personally harmed, correct?

So if I understand this correctly, when I create a contract violation flag I'm counted as the first supporter and I'll need two more if I want someone to have "trade with extreme caution". For the "newbie" flag I don't need anyone else to support it, it's shown immediately. I wish the "#" would be more prominent though, and the less-than-3-supporters contract violation flags had some sort of indicator too. Not red and scary, just more visible.

Whats the cure for newbie accounts leaving multiple retaliatory feedbacks, weird thing with this guy in hardware section just marking everyone negative. Then logged into this account and tagged lots of people just looking out for each other within the same topic and timestamps.
-edit with VERY false feedbacks about loans?

A contract-violation flag has to be created for that.

Ok, this user now has 3 supporters for the flag but still no "trade with extreme caution", only the "#" sign. What am I missing?

Edit: got it, it's the "red flag" (confusingly worded I must say) non-contractual flag. We may need better explanations on some of those things.

Okay I see from your example that you don't necessarily have to create a thread. You can link to any topic that shows reasoning. So in theory I went and created a flag from a Negative feedback I left for a Selfmod/locked topic. I could have used that topic as my link as opposed to this one I threw together

Anyone can create them, but support/opposition is only counted from people in your trust network. So if a newbie creates one, probably it will not be active from anyone's perspective, and it will thus have no effect unless it gets additional support from others.

These limits are in place:
 - Per 180 days, you can only give 1 flag of each type to a given user. So you can't give someone multiple written-contract-violation flags in 180 days, for example.
 - Globally, per year you can only create 1 flag per activity point you have, but at least 1/year.


Those are neutral ratings.

This is why I checked my profile page early today, I saw something strange, but did not know what it is (I meant different format).

---

It means if someone received 4 scammer supporting flags, while only get 1 scammer opposing flag; the account will be flagged as potential scammer (based on your clarification above). But I have a curious that it means the flag system does not account for weight of user trust. Everyone has same weight with their flags, only one per user. Do I get it right?
In addition, for this case:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=157669
By now, what I saw are:
- No matter how many supportive users to flag this account (5, 10, or 50) - with total supports are greater than opposition, with one oppostion for example, the flag status will be only displayed as Active / Inactive.
- There is no scale of flags: moderate, serious, extremely serious based on the ratio between Support/ Opposition.

What is difference between newsilike (Yellow Flag Box) and SafeDice (Red Flag Box)


They both get active flags, but one is in yellow flag, and another one is in red flag.
Their profile pages look different too:


Let me guess:
Yellow is for active flags.
Red: is for trust.
So, if someone got both red trust and active flag, their flag boxes will be displayed in Red.
Furthermore, Trust Warning is prioritised than flag:
If someone only get active flag: profile page will be shown with #, like newsilike.

But if someone get both red trust, and active flag: profile page will be shown with Trust Warning, there is no #, like SafeDice.

Lastly, what doest the meaning of smaller font size and grey color of supporters?

Can everyone create a flag? I have seen add flag option in users profile. Does this have any affect by DT member? Or everyone can create flag and if get support, it will be active.
Got it.

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.

How are the existing ratings converted into the new flags?

This has removed the "visibility" of just about every scammer in the system especially since all those previously marked as such lose their "warning" tags which while they didn't make a lot of difference it was better than nothing. In order to create a "warning"  theoretically one would have to go back, retag then create a thread for each neg they post with a new "flag" which will fill the system with messages.  The vast majority of users (mostly new) will see 3 small font numbers under a name which will have no meaning.

Could we get page numbers as on boards/in PM's so I can jump to a specific page rather than just "Next"?

Not a big deal though.