Bitcoin Forum

1) Most users learn and improve along the way.
2) Most users get hit by "feedback spammer".

Because of that I think it should be possible to delete 1-2 feedback yearly from trust summary.

Many other nerds can probably recognize that a small error in the system can ruin it all, even if it doesn't matter.

I disagree. There are many accounts I can immediately think of which should never have their red trust removed given the degree of scamming/shadiness they demonstrated. I'm sure older members could think of many more. Similarly, a scammer could simply jump between various accounts, waiting for the red trust to disappear before returning to previous ones.

I'm all for second chances for minor offences, and I think all users should be willing to review they feedback they have left if the user in question has shown a true effort to either change their ways or make amends. But automatically removing trust ratings is a bad idea.

If there should be an option to remove feed back in which you where concentrated on the negative feed backs
Would it also apply to the postive feedback?
Would users positive feedbacks also be deleted 

I am also against such changes. If a user 2 years ago was a fraud, then he stayed with them.

It would be good if an independent council appeared on the forum, which could review unfounded negative reviews, as many reviews have no evidence.

But the feedback spammers as I see it send alot red and then they are gone forever.

As I see it should be possible to delete any feedback you like. 1-2 yearly.

Then perhaps a better way to tackle the problem (not that I'm saying we should do this) is that if you are inactive for 1 or 2 years, the feedback you have left others is removed? That would give plenty of time for currently active members to copy/reinforce the feedback which is still accurate and useful, whilst the nonsense feedback spam would eventually disappear.

As an aside, posting multiple times in a row is against forum rules. If you have more to say, then just edit the first post in the chain.

If we enable this, the scammers will take advantage of it immediately when they get to know that there is a possibility to remove their negative feedback. Just imagine the high number of bounty abusers which have only 1 negative rating. They would be back to business and start spamming again all over the forum.
And every new tag would be useless after 1 year. They would just have to wait a year, log in again and remove the negative feedback.

Hide most of the feedback in untrusted feedback is a good and sufficient solution to filter out most inappropiate feedback.

1 - 2 feedbacks removed per year would not help to avoid feedback spamming. You answered it yourself: Feedback spammers will just leave a higher number of spam feedbacks.

It might be worth considering for retaliatory negative feedback.

Bro, this is a forum, not a one-state prison guilty in law, one year later get free remission or reduce fines,
Everyone can turn against a mistake instead of a year of red trust, it can be erased, so let the rules run better.

You know that every one who gives red trust has a strong reason, for his mistakes, not for putting it down. As wisky is poured, it needs legitimate and reasonable proof of his mistake.

If a member desists from whatever got him/her tagged, they could contact the user who gave them a red trust, through PM or a post. I personally prefer a post so other members can weigh in on the decision. And the user could have the tag removed if found to have 'improved'.

Are you willing to cover all losses from scammers who's negative trusts were removed this way, which deleted all references to being a scammer on their profile, and allowed them to scam someone else?

I have only been here 1½ year. As I see it the trust feedback it not used to prevent scam that much. But mostly to tell new people how to act. And therefor when they learn along the way they should have a chance to remove 1-2 feedback yearly as I see it.

Edit:
You are one if the few I have seen that actually try to fight spam with the system. But in generel I mean.

Of course it is used to prevent scams. Just imagine if we had no trust system. The forum would be full of scammers, account sellers and spammers.

I think it's not a good idea to allow scammers to scam others once a year...

Please note that you are breaking the unofficial forum rules. If you decide to add something, then edit your previous post.

Actully it a little like your trust feedback I think it could be good to have a chance to delete after some time
Bounty abuse
If you get one them from high rank account your account is dead. You can't learn from it. And maybe the feedback was not even right. Sometime the one giving feedback could be wrong.

Why dead? You can keep posting, can't you?

Then, the member should open a thread in the Reputation board explaining himself.

---

Blindly excluding negative feedbacks after 1 year (or any other period of time) is dumb. What the user could do is start having an important part in the community, helping people, actually contributing, showing that he changed. Then, he could PM the user that left him the neg feedback. I am sure most of the high DT users would reconsider. Well... except you are a scammer.

I tried my argument. Did not find any backers ;D

Will let the post die in shame.

I'm all for second chances, but time isn't the only factor involved when I'm consider feedback removal.  Sometimes people learn their lesson, sometimes not--and often it's hard to tell whether they have or not.

Generally I look at earned positive trust since the time I left my neg.  If a member has shown evidence of good behavior, and enough time has gone by, I'll think about removing any red trust I left.  That's happened, but it's rare.  Sometimes you get people like Quickseller who never figure out where they screwed up, and thus they should remain tagged.

Yes, a few words are enough sometimes. Important is to add a reference link.

There's no shame in presenting an idea that you feel will have benefit to the forum, even if it does get shot down in flames.   ;D

I don't like the idea automatically removing old trust, or even forcing review of the feedback after a certain amount of time.  I prefer The Pharmacist's approach.  And, if the member want those who left negative feed back to review that feed back, he can post a thread about it in the Reputation board.  It has been demonstrated that can end with positive results (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107707.0).

I think I misread it the first time, did you mean earn, not learn? Since you mention bounty abuse, I presume you have in mind bounty spammers, right? Always thought they associate themselves with earning and not learning.  ::)

Anyway, after mentioning feedback spammers several times, would you be kind and share which DT members have abused their status by giving excessive ratings? Give us a few examples.

No, that wouldn't work in that way and let me give you an example why not.
Lets say you are trying to buy 2 BTC for USD and the person you deal with ends up scamming you, he takes your money and he is gone (yes I know you should use escrow but just hear me out). He gets tagged by DTs. Two years have passed and he can now delete his feedback and can freely scam again. Would you be willing to make another deal with the same user again or recommend that someone else does it? After all, his negative trust has now been removed.

The only way in which this could work is by taking a look at each case individually. Like you suggested, someone who gets tagged for Bounty abuse or wearing a signature of a scam ICO (without being aware it is a scam for whatever reason) should get a chance to redeem himself after some time has passed if he has shows signs of improvement. But giving everyone the freedom to delete the trust ratings they don t agree with is a dangerous thing.

It depends what angle you look from. I look from the angle where 1000 accounts that don't scam get useless. But I have seen the fight is lost :D