Trust improvements - page 3. | Bitcointalksearch.org

deluxeCITY

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: KWH on November 08, 2014, 08:00:22 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 08, 2014, 06:44:54 PM

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 06:42:26 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 08, 2014, 03:40:06 PM

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).

I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating.

Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy right now. Since neutrals (I'd prefer they be called "suspect") don't get reflected in the design scheme to the left (poster_info) in rating display=on subforums, there's no point in leaving any, or having a neutral rating selector, at all.

I would like to see a yellow number under the User name with the amount of warnings to entice others to view, but we have a workable fix for now. Thanks Theymos.
Keep in mind: Almost any system implemented will have bugs and abuse at some level.

I don't think a neutral trust rating is actually meant to be a warning, only something that would allow someone who is potentially going to trade with a user to see what people have said (that should be neither negative nor positive). One example would be that a user has used escrow several times to do deals; this would show that a user is willing to use escrow

KWH

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1045

In Collateral I Trust.

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 08, 2014, 06:44:54 PM

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 06:42:26 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 08, 2014, 03:40:06 PM

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).

I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating.

Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy right now. Since neutrals (I'd prefer they be called "suspect") don't get reflected in the design scheme to the left (poster_info) in rating display=on subforums, there's no point in leaving any, or having a neutral rating selector, at all.

I would like to see a yellow number under the User name with the amount of warnings to entice others to view, but we have a workable fix for now. Thanks Theymos.
Keep in mind: Almost any system implemented will have bugs and abuse at some level.

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: wry on November 08, 2014, 05:31:44 PM

Thanks for improving the trust system! Can I change my current trust feedback from one rating to another? I see delete but not "edit" when I go to revisit my rating.

You can change your current trust feedback by deleting it and re-adding it.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: freedomno1 on November 08, 2014, 06:50:39 PM

Yep looks like Theymos read it and fixed it
Neutral will just exist for non-impact ratings I guess where one won't receive positive trust or negative trust.
But agree that a suspect categorization would work better

Or "bought something from this user with escrow".

bluemountain

full member

Activity: 197

Merit: 100

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 06:42:26 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 08, 2014, 03:40:06 PM

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).

I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating.

Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention?

I don't think dice sites would ever be a very good candidate for neutral feedback (with the exception of maybe holding escrow for the dice site - if you hold escrow for someone it would not necessarily mean that they are trustworthy). I think better examples of instances of when it is appropriate to leave neutral feedback would be found in the (digital) goods, lending and currency exchange sections (as well as auctions)

freedomno1

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1094

Learning the troll avoidance button :)

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 01:50:55 PM

Quote from: John (John K.) on November 08, 2014, 01:45:36 PM

There's this cause "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.", so a negative feedback is certainly sanctioned.

OK, so it changed again. Yesterday it just said "You were scammed".

Problem solved then I guess.

Yep looks like Theymos read it and fixed it
Neutral will just exist for non-impact ratings I guess where one won't receive positive trust or negative trust.
But agree that a suspect categorization would work better

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 06:42:26 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 08, 2014, 03:40:06 PM

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).

I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating.

Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy right now. Since neutrals (I'd prefer they be called "suspect") don't get reflected in the design scheme to the left (poster_info) in rating display=on subforums, there's no point in leaving any, or having a neutral rating selector, at all.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: TheButterZone on November 08, 2014, 03:40:06 PM

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).

I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating.

Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention?

wry

sr. member

Activity: 288

Merit: 251

Quote from: theymos on November 07, 2014, 07:50:00 PM

I made three improvements to the Trust system:

Firstly, there is now a neutral rating type. Neutral ratings don't affect a person's trust score at all. On a person's trust page, positive ratings are bold, neutral ratings are italic, and negative ratings are red bold-italic.

Thanks for improving the trust system! Can I change my current trust feedback from one rating to another? I see delete but not "edit" when I go to revisit my rating.

Thanks!

guitarplinker

legendary

Activity: 1694

Merit: 1024

Nice to see the changes!

I have a question about the trust though - right now it appears that I have 1 trust point, and two more pending. Is there a time frame for when those pending trusts will become trust points? Ex x number of days after the trust has been given? I've tried to figure this out for awhile but can't seem to figure it out.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in black on poster_info).

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: John (John K.) on November 08, 2014, 01:45:36 PM

There's this cause "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.", so a negative feedback is certainly sanctioned.

OK, so it changed again. Yesterday it just said "You were scammed".

Problem solved then I guess.

John (John K.)

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1227

Away on an extended break

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 01:39:13 PM

...

I'll assume the "I was scammed" is just an example of when to use negative feedback rather than an exhaustive list, until I hear differently.

There's this cause "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.", so a negative feedback is certainly sanctioned.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: John (John K.) on November 08, 2014, 12:56:55 PM

+1 here. Notice that most seasoned users do not or rarely get scammed.

OK, so I'm going to continue using the trust system as I did before the wording was changed, and leave negative trust for people I think aren't trustworthy, whether they managed to scam me or not.

I'll assume the "I was scammed" is just an example of when to use negative feedback rather than an exhaustive list, until I hear differently.

John (John K.)

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1227

Away on an extended break

Quote from: qwk on November 08, 2014, 12:54:05 PM

I'm with dooglus here.
The whole point of the trust system should be to warn others before they are scammed.

I am an experienced user of this forum. I know a scam when I see one.
Why should I not be able to point the potential scammer out as what he is?
After all, it's not like I'm accusing him of a crime, all I want to say is:
I don't trust that guy, if you think I'm smart, follow my advice.

It is absolutely necessary not only to allow, but even to encourage negative trust for suspected scammers.

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 01:54:12 AM

I often leave negative trust feedback for scammers before they scam anyone, or after they scam others. I don't often get scammed myself.
After these changes, I don't see a way of doing that any more, so what should I do?

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 02:16:35 AM

If you flag them before they scam, potential victims are alerted by the "trade with caution" note next to their posts.
If you wait until after they've run off with all the coins, it's too late. By then they've made a new account and a new scam thread.
Seems daft to me to only allow us to leave negative feedback after the event, and only if we were personally scammed.

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 02:34:49 AM

What about the guy who starts yet another Ponzi thread: "guaranteed 200% returns in 24 hours, no limit". He hasn't scammed me, but he's obviously trying to scam. There are noobs in the thread asking questions, and my negative rating could well help them not fall victim to his scam. But he didn't scam me, and won't, because I know it's a scam.

+1 here. Notice that most seasoned users do not or rarely get scammed. I personally try to leave negative trust for users that I deem untrustworthy if I can to prevent other unsuspecting members from falling for them.

qwk

donator

Activity: 3542

Merit: 3413

Shitcoin Minimalist

I'm with dooglus here.
The whole point of the trust system should be to warn others before they are scammed.

I am an experienced user of this forum. I know a scam when I see one.
Why should I not be able to point the potential scammer out as what he is?
After all, it's not like I'm accusing him of a crime, all I want to say is:
I don't trust that guy, if you think I'm smart, follow my advice.

It is absolutely necessary not only to allow, but even to encourage negative trust for suspected scammers.

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 01:54:12 AM

I often leave negative trust feedback for scammers before they scam anyone, or after they scam others. I don't often get scammed myself.
After these changes, I don't see a way of doing that any more, so what should I do?

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 02:16:35 AM

If you flag them before they scam, potential victims are alerted by the "trade with caution" note next to their posts.
If you wait until after they've run off with all the coins, it's too late. By then they've made a new account and a new scam thread.
Seems daft to me to only allow us to leave negative feedback after the event, and only if we were personally scammed.

Quote from: dooglus on November 08, 2014, 02:34:49 AM

What about the guy who starts yet another Ponzi thread: "guaranteed 200% returns in 24 hours, no limit". He hasn't scammed me, but he's obviously trying to scam. There are noobs in the thread asking questions, and my negative rating could well help them not fall victim to his scam. But he didn't scam me, and won't, because I know it's a scam.

devthedev

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Somekindabitcoin on November 08, 2014, 04:44:06 AM

Why not make neutral trust visible? Still could work as trade with caution. It could have an extra info tab as to why there is a neutral there. If multiple people neutral this person, it would say a reason why like something around the terms of suspicious activity and the potential to scam/high risk.

That's a good idea.

Welsh

staff

Activity: 3304

Merit: 4115

Quote from: theymos on November 08, 2014, 10:52:15 AM

Quote from: Oldminer on November 08, 2014, 02:36:45 AM

Will everyone's 'trust depth' be automatically changed to '2' as it should be (seeing as most people would be default set to '3' and have no idea what this means, and so are unlikely to change it)?

The default has always been 2.

Great few edits & new additions, thank you!

theymos

administrator

Activity: 5222

Merit: 13032

Quote from: Oldminer on November 08, 2014, 02:36:45 AM

Will everyone's 'trust depth' be automatically changed to '2' as it should be (seeing as most people would be default set to '3' and have no idea what this means, and so are unlikely to change it)?

The default has always been 2.

hilariousandco

global moderator

Activity: 4018

Merit: 2728

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

It'd be fine to still leave negative for that. A person doesn't have to have personally scammed you before you can leave feedback. Ponzis should still likely recieve negative as I'm sure most would agree they deserve it, and people who are almost certainly trying to scam should also still recieve a negative as a warning in my opinion.

Topic: Trust improvements - page 3. (Read 5926 times)