Bitcoin Forum

BPIP now has another useless report, taking advantage of all the current trust hype!

https://bpip.org/r/trustsent.aspx

This was supposed to launch with the rest of the trust tracking, but recent changes have delayed that.

You can click on the column titles to sort.

The Pharmacist has sent more ratings then me ??? Okay, time for kitty to wake up from winter sleep. Game on!

What's going on here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2380455

Looks like a case for admin intervention.

I think it'll be helpful if Theymos limited the number of feedback's that can be sent in a short period to prevent similar abuse in the future.

@Vod: Really amazing work you've been doing with BPIP.
BTW, How do you manage to parse every user's profile without triggering Cloudflare? You've parsed ~23m pages so far. ;)

Time.  :)   Theymos restricts it to one page per second per IP.  I have a few parsers running in case one fails, and I parse about 3-4 pages a second.

Thanks a lot @Vod. I forget that darn sleep command. :P

I'm assuming you have multiple parsers that binds to different IPs to achieve 4 PPS without triggering the one PPS limit. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct.  The parser uses so little resources I can run it on a free AWS server, so I could have an unlimited number of them.  But I don't want to overload the forum or risk getting banned - without Theymos' cooperation BPIP would not exist as it does now.  On the flip side, I wonder how much I am helping the forum by reducing people's research time and page views.  :)

As you can tell by the last parsed dates on a lot of reports, BPIP is doing a good job of keeping data in "near time".   I project that once I am parsing posts as well, I will need a maximum of five parses a second.  I'm sure this forum can handle that. 

I use NordVPN to connect each of my home PCs on a different IP address.   It's so reliable I am on it 24x7 and don't notice any issues.

Yeah, BPIP is an awesome project that unifies many aspects of user research into a simple interface and in return I'm pretty sure many users don't need additional visits to bitcointalk which surely does help reduce forum load. ;)


Isn't it possible to achieve that with a single parser using the recent posts feed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent)?

Well yes, that is the most efficient way to get the newest posts.

I should only have to parse that page once every few seconds.  It only shows the last ten posts, and they can come in pretty quick.

I wish I knew of way to get more posts on the page, then I wouldn't have to parse it so often.

Interesting addition to BPIP! Although it feels bad finding myself so far down it makes me realize I have to start dishing it out more frequently, I've been slacking lately so time to change that as I echo what Lauda said. (About game on!)

Is that a bug? It says times merited while it's about trust feedback. Also, it should be an amount but displaying names.

https://i.ibb.co/Jn12f8C/Screenshot-20190112-084619.png

Yeah, I forgot to tell the web designer about the new page.  :/

He writes the CSS that generates the mobile view.

It would be interesting if on the landing page when we clicked on the title of a ranking it would open a bigger list. "Most Merited", "Most Activity", "Most Trusted"

All good now!!  ;D

Did you just tag like 600+ accounts, just to be #1 again? :D You must have missed DT :D

I had this crazy idea to tag 160,000 banned users, but theymos thought I shouldn't:
At some point, Lauda's trust page will time out too.

That was handled very fast! I've seen topics about trust-spam go unhandled for months. This is good :)

I'm downloading it every few seconds, but it can be improved by adjusting for the average number of posts in the past minutes. And if you miss a post due to a quick burst of posts, you could download page 2 or further to catch up.

It would also be very nice to have a real time backup of every merited post, BPIP would be the ideal place to find back the ones that got deleted.

I had nightmares about this and couldn't sleep, so I did some catching up. ;D Or maybe I just casted a spell that automatically tagged all those people, who knows.

Why is it the attitude becomes negative? Is it a bad attitude if you have given too much Negative feedbacks?
As I can see Attitude = PF-NF,... So by the means of this you'll be determine as having a good attitude if you're sending many PF rather than NF. Or is it just somekind of mistake?

---

Edit:
Lauda has commited again various massacres everywhere just to become no. 1 :D. Just in a short time he surpassed The Pharmacist by a hundred of feedbacks more.

This isn't even my final form. I ran out of reports to catch up to. :P

I yield! You win..

"Attitude" is just a term I chose to describe the positive feedback minus the negative feedback.   It does not describe the personality of the profile in any way.

I believe, and time will tell, that people will higher attitudes will get more trust and merit.

Lauda PMed me a bug report that turned out to be a design flaw.  To not parse the trust page every time (which is a second page load after the profile page), it would only do it if the trust numbers on the profile page changed.  Leaving someone feedback does not change any of those numbers.

I will modify the code as follows:
1) LoyceV suggested I parse the profile after it receives merit.  Trust will not be parsed.
2) The profile is parsed on a regular schedule.  Trust may or may not be parsed, depending on current activity.
3) When someone clicks the refresh button, trust will be parsed.

I will make the changes when I come back from the Oilers game tonight.   ;D



At any time, he can add pagination to the code.  5,000 or even 10,000 records might be a good limit.  That would mean 99.99996% of profiles (one out of 2.5 million) would never need it.  :)

Theymos doesn't like doing that:

Is there a badge for Top senders of merit?  If there isn't  can you create one please. As of now I only have one badge on BPIP and will love to earn more believing my smeiit sending ratio can earn me top1000  Also maybe a smerit badge will encourage more awarding of smerit since humans enjoy receiving awards. Just saying...

So there's like a mecha-Godzilla-cat Lauda as well?  Nice, you can take the title from me cleanly--it's all yours, and I never thought I'd held such a thing until around last week anyway. 

I've become a little bit more reluctant to tag the old "alt accounts scamming bounties" members, but have at 'em if you like.  It's not like the number of scammers has decreased any in the past year or so. 

There's one that operates on catnip; as long as there is fuel humans like you have no chance.

I'm not. It's unfortunate that some projects are getting scammed by both their "BM" and bounty hunters. I also vehemently dislike their "they are my 15 aunts"-type lies.

Not an insignificant part of me is giggling with glee that you're back on DT for this exact reason.  I never believed those excuses before either, but I did make a couple mistakes in tagging people based on data that users like mdayonliner (I think) and others had presented, like that airdropped dust of ETH (I think) that people got a while back that seemingly linked accounts but was nothing more than someone sending out dust.

Get ready for more threads about you if you aren't already--but I suspect you're more than ready for that.  And I mean more than the ones that popped up a few days ago when the new DT list got released.  Wheeee!

https://bpip.org/r/trustsent.aspx

Sending trust is becoming an important part of being on DT.

I was wondering if little badges would be useful, the same thing Theymos planned for the report system.
(And Theymos I hope you eventually release report numbers so that can be recognized like this as well)

You sent 600 negative ratings in under 24 hours (closer to 22 hours)....just to have the most number of ratings sent? That works out to one every ~2.2 minutes assuming you were working the entire 22 hours with no breaks.

I can’t imagine you possibly did enough research to confirm each of those people are in fact scammers in that time. It seems to me that you just effectively excluded 600 people from participating in the marketplace for no reason other than to have an “award” for having sent the most number of ratings.

Like I have been saying for a long time, these "forum cops" advance their own reputation by stomping all over others, especially those that have no ability to resist them or have no recourse. This is an issue, and these people need to be restrained by tighter standards for rating since they refuse to restrain themselves and treat this community like a game they are trying to rank up in at all costs. This is sucking the life out of this community, and it will only be apparent to everyone far after it is too late to change anything.

I agree with you.   

I've been doing what I do successfully for a few years, so I won't start second guessing myself.  If Theymos wants to state the explicit rules, those that do things differently may have to leave.   But I believe rules are needed if only to control trolls like yourself and Quickie.

Until he sets rules though, I am going to continue my pattern of tagging people I do not trust.

I can see your OCD has been triggered again unfortunately. For the crime of replying to your asinine comments to me in other threads, I can see you are going to repeat your obsessive stalking behavior of the past because your fragile ego can not handle criticism without a total mental breakdown. I will quote you:


As we were discussing before your attempt to make this about you, this is about more than a single individual, it is about a poorly designed system of trust which allows for systemic abuse by certain users while they hide in the ambiguity of there being no set standards for leaving negative ratings. As a result the trust system becomes cover for frauds via abusive trust ratings, as opposed to a system of calling out fraud.

Keep whining, that won't change the fact that my accuracy remains consistent. The number you quoted is low for what I can manage, I just ran out of your accounts to tag. Pathethic fool. :)

That may work if I were not #1 on the list, some trolls gotta complain.

Perhaps you could explain how it was that you were able to research that many accounts in that short of time....or is this an admission that you don’t care about actual guilt when you tag people?

There is an argument that theymos should undo all of your moderator actions after this has come out in order to ensure no one is harmed as a result of your carelessness. If not then your moderator actions should certainly be heavily scrutinized and throughly reviewed.

Maybe Lauda had researched them prior?