Bitcoin Forum

Just wondering, I couldn't find any option to toggle on/off as the post count.
You may say that the trust is irrelevant for some section where no trading is involved but still, some of the tags are not for "trading" related issues but also for different many different other reasons.
It can be very useful for someone to have an option to turn on the trust on all the sections.
The default option can be like it's now for everyone.

There are no such feature yet at all.

You are asking some real extra works for the admin since creating a module for that will need a lot of testing and tweaking back and forth.

You only really trade on the places where the trust is shown.
That being said, bitcoin technical support and alternative clients board should probably have their trust show there like the are in other places (if someone is developing something or offering to help in some other ways).

---

You should use merit scores for what you want instead.

Trust should not have any bearing on your perception of the person posting. It's only natural to see a trust rating, and assume that the person is talking bollocks or aren't worth listening to if they have a negative rating. In reality this isn't the case.

Why would you want it to be displayed everywhere? Its related to trade, and only makes sense to have it in sections concerning trading. Having it as a toggle option could be implemented, but I think keeping it the way it is as the default option is the best idea.

If we have a situation where everyone can off their trust rating, everyone with a negative trust will turn it off and it will be very detrimental for those transacting with them because they won't see the warning to trade with caution. I think the way, the truth system is at the moment is very good.

Firstly I want to mention that it needs almost 0 extra work, you described everything very exaggeratedly.
The reason why trust isn't shown in all section is that it's not needed everywhere. For example in bitcoin technical discussion, mining discussion and in similar boards, there is not something similar of trade, only questions and answers about tech things, that's all.

This topic actually got me wondering, should we really only limit "trust" for trade-related purposes?

Doesn't it follow that if you are a known scammer by virtue of your market trades, then that your words (posts) are also questionable? I assume that scammers are understandably biased to say things that would be in their favor (or for their profit) and therefor also cannot be trusted.

So I found myself wondering the same thing  while I was strolling through the Beginner and Help board. It feels to me that not showing trust here could be like leading a lamb to slaughter.

This board is ideally supposed to draw in the Newbies, and we already know that not everything gets reported/moderated. To me this just provides an opportunity for untrusted members to abuse the system with carte blanche.

I can see how some people in general may see red trust and ignore what a person has to say, but that's their loss. If I see Red, I always look at why/how and go from there.  Sometimes it leads to an interesting story or history within the community. Usually it means I will listen to their idea but wouldn't enter a trade using someone else's 10 foot pole.

those other feedbacks left for non-trading related issues are unintended use of trust
theymos added trust system to the marketplace sections, so people can build their own trust network
there was no other intentions than for leaving feedbacks after good/bad trades
but since there are no rules set in stone, DT members start using it for other things

Yeah I know that, but since Trust is already mutated from it's main purpose in more wide covering areas like the merit abuse, alt-accounts, spam & shitposting, and nothing was done to prevent it from happening,  I was thinking that one option like I suggested can be only a benefit for those people reporting posts.

On the other side it sometimes helps distinguish trolls and people you shouldn't waste your time with. I've previously seen people 'talking bollocks' in Bitcoin Discussion and wasted my time trying to engage them and then when you then see their profile and it's littered with red you suddenly realise they're a troll and that's all their account is good for now. I'm not saying that trust should be shown everywhere, but I get the reasoning why it's not shown because it will effect how you perceive that person (though sometimes knowing their 'true colours' can be helpful).

Why doesn't merit work to distinguish this though?

I do think all the sections where the trust is shown is what where we need the trust score to see besides the marketplace and trading discussion the trust system is also shown in ANN threads or bounty sections of Altcoins where we all know a lot of scam can happen, seeing someone tag that is posting in that section is an early warning for other members. Also why do you think that the trust system is irrelevant when it is only shown in sections where the trust system is truly needed? Do you think it has some kind of influence in receiving merits regarding in those sections?

I think so. Newbies will likely judge users on their trust rating, and not heed their perfectly sound advice/post. Anyway, not every user is rightly tagged, and negative trust ratings are subjective. What I might consider untrustworthy could be different to you. Just because someone on DefaultTrust has left a negative doesn't mean they are actually right.

You could give Deathandtaxes as an example. They were very well informed about Bitcoin, and offered some very intellectual discussions about it. However, they have been red tagged.

This is a good point. This is kind of why I liked the ignore glow effect that was shortly implemented a while back. The more the user was ignored the more glow that was added, and what colour the glow effect was. That was good for distinguishing users that aren't worth listening too. This did have its drawbacks which resulted in it getting removed, but I feel that this was better suited than the trust system in identifying trolls.

Merit probably isn't the best solution to identifying trolls. Several members started off with high amounts which would be misleading to those that are new to the forums. Plus, merit is rewarded subjectively, and I've seen several posts that have been merited even though they don't deserve to be. Take for example the multiple bounty threads which have received merit.

I'm not sure how it would. If they don't have any merit therefore they're a troll?


Nah, I disliked that feature immensely. Whilst it worked in some cases (I remember people like Phinneaus Gage glowing like a nuclear reactor), I was put on ignore on my hilariousandco account by a lot of people just because I was outspoken, or for making a lot of posts. I remember a couple of people 'ignoring' me just because they lost an argument which is pretty petty. I don't think I was ever glowing, but I probably would have go there eventually so it can give the wrong impression or make people judge you in a similar way that negative feedback would.

I mean if someone has an activity score of 280 and no merit, you can probably safely assume their post isn't going to be of great use. There will be a copuld of anomalies  but it should work? After all, the merit system was made to combat trolls and spammers.

Someone with only 14 activity won't have much merit (obviously) but also might not have been spotted for being a troll.

If you allow account sales, then trust is no longer useful in trading. The trust system has morphed into a reputation ststement, and I think this is more useful. It allows for the flagging of sold accounts for example.

If they have an insane amount of posts and no merit, then yeah, you can probably assume that they haven't been writing much of use, but they could also just be unlucky or be a local board poster where there's few or no merit sources.


I don't think it had anything to do with trolls, but just sig spam and account farmers. Trolls still get merit from people (at least when they're entertaining) so can still move up the ranks.


Even if we disallowed account sales people would still sell their accounts elsewhere. I'm not against banning their sale, but I'm a big believer in that the forum should offer more donator ranks that come with bigger signatures as perks as this would essentially kill the account farming and selling market because accounts would become largely worthless then. In addition, you could also ban account sales here to further kill the market and I don't think people will bother buying them off site as there would be no point and the likelihood of you being scammed would increase drastically.

May be technically I am wrong but not sure if you are right too. We both don't know the code structure of SMF so actually non of us can give the correct answer.

There'll be a button on the admin panel and probably a few checkboxes that Theymos/Cyrus will have to click but probably not much more than that.

And how about the if-else statements or any other logical expressions that needed when you call the button and the checkboxes  ;D Also provably the specific table in the DB that contains the section information may need an extra column too to categories the sections, we just don't know  :D

Or the default SMF already have these checkboxes and button on the admin panel  :P

Jet Cash has SMF for his fittotalk may be he can enlighten us a bit about the default settings for trust or feedback whatever they call it in default.

I agree with your viewpoint, although I did quite like the concept of it. It wasn't perfect by all means, but I felt it added something. I still feel its better than the trust system for determining trolls. The trust system can be used to spite someone, whereas the ignore system didn't have any real effect. Plus, the trust system is horribly misused by certain users, and a lot of users are more concerned about ruining someones reputation than giving them the benefit of the doubt sometimes. Obviously, I'm referring to the lesser issues rather than outright scamming here.

I kind of agree with this. I know trust is only related to trades in the forum, but I think it's almost impossible to actually trust the posts of a user that has neg trust. If he deceives other users when it comes to trades, it would be reasonable to accept that he will do the same on many other areas, because he is probably someone that will try to mislead others for his own personal agenda (whatever that is).