I recently (April 4) received many negative ratings from new accounts - that guy copied my own comments --> 0/10 for effort.
I didn't give a bad rating to symantec, but maybe he maintains more than one bitcointalk account
Topic: Trust spam happens - page 2. (Read 4120 times)
Why when I open toppic scam, you jump into my toppic and give a response -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fuckidolplus-scammer-56-please-banned-him-1012548
To try to clear things up. That's what people are supposed to do in a scam accusation. Unfortunately you weren't helpful so I had to give up.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10990891
]haha wow that is a lot of negative feedback. Well I guess we now know who was behind all those spam negatives that Vod got not long ago. None of them have any credibility though, especially considering that they all have negative trust
Behind these negative people who are taking advantage of them as a hobby and with the ignorance of working to impose on everyone here.
Why do not know is he ignorant when using Trust:
- Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.
- Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.
- Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.
I just left a review noting symantec hacks websites to steal keys and resell them (after he publicly admitted so) and I instantly got trust spam from several accounts, very similarly as OP. So I'm pretty sure he's the one who left that spam for OP too.
Oh...A dog miserable, why look at things like the others here.
Why when I open toppic scam, you jump into my toppic and give a response -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fuckidolplus-scammer-56-please-banned-him-1012548
I just left a review noting symantec hacks websites to steal keys and resell them (after he publicly admitted so) and I instantly got trust spam from several accounts, very similarly as OP. So I'm pretty sure he's the one who left that spam for OP too.
haha wow that is a lot of negative feedback. Well I guess we now know who was behind all those spam negatives that Vod got not long ago. None of them have any credibility though, especially considering that they all have negative trust
I just left a review noting symantec hacks websites to steal keys and resell them (after he publicly admitted so) and I instantly got trust spam from several accounts, very similarly as OP. So I'm pretty sure he's the one who left that spam for OP too.
Edit: After leaving a review on his shill accounts noting they belong to symantec he removed almost all of the spam from my profile.
Edit: After leaving a review on his shill accounts noting they belong to symantec he removed almost all of the spam from my profile.
Orrrr, you give scammers 42 days of immunity before the newbie they just got scammed or almost scammed can speak out against them. Can anyone show a single example of where trust spam by newbies has caused any effect on anyone in the slightest? Maybe point out a thread where someone refused to deal with someone because they had 50 negatives from untrusted newbies?
This is also a good point. But doesn't this cut both ways, if everyone ignores trust from newbies then how is removing their ability to put that equivalent to removing their voice to "speak out". Presumably they can still post issues in "scam accusations". But if 50 accounts try to post the same scam accusation just to rage-spam the forum, the mods will presumably delete those threads.
I admit, I'm not passionate about this either way, and I haven't had any trust-spam issues. I just thought that the waiting period on feedback may have made sense. But I may be wrong...
The point is, that newbie's feedback (and everyone's for that matter) is pretty much disregarded unless you include a reference link, and an accurate description of what the negative is for. I haven't seen a single case since the trust system was implemented where trust spam has been any sort of issue. I've seen people annoyed that they recieved a negative, but I haven't seen a single case where a false negative from trust spammers has inhibited anyone in any way. I dont see why we need to propose fixes for something that isn't a problem. If it becomes a problem, we should fix it.
I understand. My only reply would be that annoyances are, in a sense, problems. Minor ones by definition, yes. But many annoyances can certainly become problematic. In any case, I won't say anything more on this because I've never been trust spammed and therefore never even been annoyed by it.
Orrrr, you give scammers 42 days of immunity before the newbie they just got scammed or almost scammed can speak out against them. Can anyone show a single example of where trust spam by newbies has caused any effect on anyone in the slightest? Maybe point out a thread where someone refused to deal with someone because they had 50 negatives from untrusted newbies?
This is also a good point. But doesn't this cut both ways, if everyone ignores trust from newbies then how is removing their ability to put that equivalent to removing their voice to "speak out". Presumably they can still post issues in "scam accusations". But if 50 accounts try to post the same scam accusation just to rage-spam the forum, the mods will presumably delete those threads.
I admit, I'm not passionate about this either way, and I haven't had any trust-spam issues. I just thought that the waiting period on feedback may have made sense. But I may be wrong...
The point is, that newbie's feedback (and everyone's for that matter) is pretty much disregarded unless you include a reference link, and an accurate description of what the negative is for. I haven't seen a single case since the trust system was implemented where trust spam has been any sort of issue. I've seen people annoyed that they recieved a negative, but I haven't seen a single case where a false negative from trust spammers has inhibited anyone in any way. I dont see why we need to propose fixes for something that isn't a problem. If it becomes a problem, we should fix it.
maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls
I disagree. Newbies do business, in fact a large percentage of gift card market is newbies, because non-bitcoiners find this great deal and sign up for an account here. Disallowing newbies wouldn't fix anything with trust spam since the vast majority of trust left here is by people higher than junior member.It takes 30 activity points to get a newbie account turn into a Jr. Member...
Of course they will. The point here was that someone or some ones were creating a bunch of accounts just to drop a bunch of negative trust, ie trust spam. Presuambly if you have to wait a month and a half, you'll have calmed down a bit in that time and so creating a bunch of accounts just to trust spam won't really happen.
Orrrr, you give scammers 42 days of immunity before the newbie they just got scammed or almost scammed can speak out against them. Can anyone show a single example of where trust spam by newbies has caused any effect on anyone in the slightest? Maybe point out a thread where someone refused to deal with someone because they had 50 negatives from untrusted newbies?
This is also a good point. But doesn't this cut both ways, if everyone ignores trust from newbies then how is removing their ability to put that equivalent to removing their voice to "speak out". Presumably they can still post issues in "scam accusations". But if 50 accounts try to post the same scam accusation just to rage-spam the forum, the mods will presumably delete those threads.
I admit, I'm not passionate about this either way, and I haven't had any trust-spam issues. I just thought that the waiting period on feedback may have made sense. But I may be wrong...
maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls
I disagree. Newbies do business, in fact a large percentage of gift card market is newbies, because non-bitcoiners find this great deal and sign up for an account here. Disallowing newbies wouldn't fix anything with trust spam since the vast majority of trust left here is by people higher than junior member.It takes 30 activity points to get a newbie account turn into a Jr. Member...
Of course they will. The point here was that someone or some ones were creating a bunch of accounts just to drop a bunch of negative trust, ie trust spam. Presuambly if you have to wait a month and a half, you'll have calmed down a bit in that time and so creating a bunch of accounts just to trust spam won't really happen.
Orrrr, you give scammers 42 days of immunity before the newbie they just got scammed or almost scammed can speak out against them. Can anyone show a single example of where trust spam by newbies has caused any effect on anyone in the slightest? Maybe point out a thread where someone refused to deal with someone because they had 50 negatives from untrusted newbies?
maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls
I disagree. Newbies do business, in fact a large percentage of gift card market is newbies, because non-bitcoiners find this great deal and sign up for an account here. Disallowing newbies wouldn't fix anything with trust spam since the vast majority of trust left here is by people higher than junior member.It takes 30 activity points to get a newbie account turn into a Jr. Member...
Of course they will. The point here was that someone or some ones were creating a bunch of accounts just to drop a bunch of negative trust, ie trust spam. Presuambly if you have to wait a month and a half, you'll have calmed down a bit in that time and so creating a bunch of accounts just to trust spam won't really happen.
maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls
I disagree. Newbies do business, in fact a large percentage of gift card market is newbies, because non-bitcoiners find this great deal and sign up for an account here. Disallowing newbies wouldn't fix anything with trust spam since the vast majority of trust left here is by people higher than junior member.It takes 30 activity points to get a newbie account turn into a Jr. Member...
I removed negative trust off two accounts that stopped selling MSDN keys. The trust spam seems to have stopped for me. 
maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls
That does seem like it might fix the issue associated with this particular thread. If you have to wait a month to use your brand new 20 accounts drop trust spam, presumably your head would have cooled off in those 4 weeks and you'd have thought of something more useful to do.
maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls
I disagree. Newbies do business, in fact a large percentage of gift card market is newbies, because non-bitcoiners find this great deal and sign up for an account here. Disallowing newbies wouldn't fix anything with trust spam since the vast majority of trust left here is by people higher than junior member.It takes 30 activity points to get a newbie account turn into a Jr. Member...
maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls
I disagree. Newbies do business, in fact a large percentage of gift card market is newbies, because non-bitcoiners find this great deal and sign up for an account here. Disallowing newbies wouldn't fix anything with trust spam since the vast majority of trust left here is by people higher than junior member.That's because a lathe percentage of the gift cards are purchased with stolen credit cards. People burn through newbie accounts because they are easy to create.
Agreed. I really don't think there are too many people that make deals as soon as they join bitcointalk for the first time. Almost all newbies making deals are old members hiding behind alt accounts.
Besides if a newbie makes deals at least for a little while they will be junior in a couple of weeks. So allowing only Jr. members and above to leave feedback would make sense to me.
maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls
I disagree. Newbies do business, in fact a large percentage of gift card market is newbies, because non-bitcoiners find this great deal and sign up for an account here. Disallowing newbies wouldn't fix anything with trust spam since the vast majority of trust left here is by people higher than junior member.That's because a large percentage of the gift cards are purchased with stolen credit cards. People burn through newbie accounts because they are easy to create.
maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls
I disagree. Newbies do business, in fact a large percentage of gift card market is newbies, because non-bitcoiners find this great deal and sign up for an account here. Disallowing newbies wouldn't fix anything with trust spam since the vast majority of trust left here is by people higher than junior member.
maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls
I'm up to 35 spam trust ratings now, all from newbie accounts with no activity.
I must be very important to someone out there!
I must be very important to someone out there!
Jump to: