It would be perfectly possible and not too difficult. Every post containing [quote author=<ignored_used>] could be hidden/ignored. The only issue I see is that a post could be from someone you care about and could include useful information. To solve that only the quote itself could be removed/hidden while showing everything else. Edit: Actually it would be easy to create a userscript that does that. I'll try getting some time to work on that soon, unless someone writes it first. |
|
|
|
|
Good news is BitcoinTalkCoinTalk.org is available!
|
|
|
|
It's useless to discuss with you so I prefer not to. I'll just tell you I haven't even posted here if that's what you mean. And I repeat: This thread is to discuss trust spam (not "shitpost ratings" as you apparently call feedback you disagree with). Please keep it on topic. |
|
|
|
DT system should not be like this at all. You seem to care way too much about DT (not the trust system itself but *Default Trust list*). Earlier you were totally fine with Vod abusing his DT position against me, and now you're so vocal about the importance of what's shown on "trusted" and "untrusted" feedback. What would you do if someone on DT left a totally unjust shitty lying rating on you?
Read again what I posted and try to understand this time. You totally missed it. As I've posted in my previous post and OP I care about the spam, not DT. It's not OK for someone to leave 2,430 lines of trust spam. And no, I'm not OK with Vod or anyone else abusing anything. Do not lie again about me. However of course we may have different opinions about whether a specific case is an abuse or no. This thread is to discuss trust spam. Please keep it on topic. |
|
|
|
Edit: After actually examining the OPs situation, I can see were it presents more than a mild nuisance.
Exactly. The problem is the spam. I know all of them are not DT and never will but their spam makes my trust page unusable, at least everything shown below "Untrusted feedback". I don't think OP should worry about untrusted feedback. It will not reflect on your trust rating unless they become DT.
The problem with this is that it is difficult to pressure someone to remove the rating long after they give the rating if they are later included in the DT network. Also, if someone not in DT starting leaving questionable ratings that do not receive pushback, then someone in DT might start leaving similar questionable ratings. That's not really my point here, just the spam. If someone who is not DT leaves a totally incorrect, lying comment on my feedback then I know they'll never be DT so I can ignore it. But if a single user leaves 2,430 lines of spam in my profile as I mention in OP then I would expect an admin to remove it. |
|
|
|
basically it is not forbidden to buy accounts.
so the question is whether there is such a thing as a trustworthy seller?
in my opinion, scam lurks behind almost all offers.
since it is not forbidden to sell accounts, there should be a market of good traders?
The 100% trustworthy seller (or person) doesn't exist. But you can take precautions to drastically reduce your risks, so my first sentence can't be used to avoid using escrow for example. I've seen some scammers use this excuse or something similar to try that. Of course it's safer to deal with an old member with good trust, whose account doesn't show any signs of having changed hands, who can sign a message with an old BTC address or GPG certificate, willing to use a more trusted escrow if asked, etc. since it is not forbidden to sell accounts...
This doesn't change anything by the way. If selling accounts were forbidden people would still sell accounts and the 100% trustworthy user wouldn't exist either. |
|
|
|
The trust system is there as a guide and people can interpret feedback as they wish. If you see someone with an unsourced negative then you can choose to ignore or discredit it if you think it's invalid without one. I'm not sure making it a requirement would change much though. You could just put any random link there, and as others have said, sometimes they're not always needed. What if you just think a user has been a very active and helpful member of the community over the years? How can you provide a source for that without creating a thread listing all the ways you think they've been helpful. Sometimes you can get that all across just in what you write in the actual feedback and no source is necessary.
Indeed, it wouldn't make sense to add it as an explicit rule. However it should be a strong suggestion to add one whenever possible. I tend to ignore feedback left by users who regularly don't include a reference even when it would be helpful. |
|
|
|
hi EcuaMobi its enough time please remove your negative remarks thanks
You keep asking for loans with invalid collateral ( 1, 2) and have posted absolutely nothing useful, so no, it won't be removed.
Done |
|
|
|
Censorship is not defined as no stopping illegal activity (THEFT). Censorship is the suppression of free expression but not the supression of theft just like the first amendment allows "free speech" but precludes yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is none. Do cops "censor" thieves when they arrest them for illegal activities ? This part of the forum condones illegal activity by not stopping the obvious thieves. Sure, sometimes there is a grey area but many times it's quite obvious.
Censorship can be argued when removing posts before a scam is made, or without absolute proof, even if it's obviously a scam, as "obviously" can be subjective. But we agree the forum must do something about this. |
|
|
|
Tagged
...it's just that there isn't a viable solution to nip their actions in the bud without becoming a censored dictatorship....
...I support the idea of not allowing sales threads to be self moderated or locked...
The forum can't censorship. It would be difficult to draw a line. But it can certainly do something, like what you mention here plus showing some kind of trust to non registered users. It has been suggested several times and always ignored. Even if it's mainly the scammed users' fault, anything possible should be done to reduce it. Besides the need to help those users, this just increases the bad reputation of bitcoin that links it with illegal activities. |
|
|
|
Auction start : 5 btc
US$5 to be paid in BTC? or BTC5? If the former then I bid $5 on Cryptonist .com |
|
|
|
Tagged and added references. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
"How to wipe". Great Bitcoin and Meta topic!
|
|
|
|
Left some feedback to them... (and to you too, thanks) |
|
|
|
No. I think he means getting a list of every DT1 and DT2 members ( like this provided you have default settings) and voting who deserves to remain in the list. Ideally it doesn't sound like a crazy idea, but it would be extremely difficult to avoid abuse (creating or buying accounts to vote) and keep it objective. The voting should be either moderated or limited to trusted users, losing the whole idea behind voting. However I do think DT1 members should be much more open to suggestion about modifying their DT2 list and theymos about the DT1 list. |
|
|
|
for moderators to look in
Giving power only to moderators would make the system even more centralized. This is why trust is not moderated. members would submit evidence/reference of whatever they are accusing another member of for moderators to look in to and decide whether the member deserves to be tagged or not
This is somehow how it works when someone posts on Scam accusations, except more users have the power to tag instead of just moderators. I see the advantage on your several suggested levels and colors. But maybe it could become too confusing to use. |
|
|
|
New alts to watch out for: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4802791.0started by sunnybleacher, exact same post and rocketr buy addy as https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4970606.0now posting as Full member vervainagospoda who is accused in Trust ratings for defaulting on loans. I remember this scumbag from a bit ago and I thought was being accused of buying this Full member account. Could be wrong but I remember this name. At least they do not lock their thread so we can bash them  They were already tagged by another DT user but I've just tagged them too anyway. |
|
|
|
@EcuaMobi: Please add a list of scam members to avoid dealing with them or must using escrow before that. "There are a lot of scam reports against YoutubeTV.[1] [2]......."
That list would be too long, would require to be updated several times per day and it would be imposible to be exhaustive. That's why I and others leave negative trust and I recommend guests to register to see the seller's trust before making any deal and to avoid auto-buy links. I can't find any advantages on maintaining this list instead of using the trust system: - It's more likely people check someone's rating than this list before making any list
- This list would be maintained only by me instead of several people (your suggestion of having several users to maintain it is better, but I still don't think it's better than the trust system)
- People could think the list is exhaustive and trust a scammer just because it's not on the list yet
- A lot of work would be required to maintain the list
- ...
Let me know if I misunderstood what you mean. |
|
|
|
A couple of suggestions I've already made in the past and haven't been considered yet: - Show the default trust on the Marketplace for unregistered users. A lot of guests get scammed by users who are already tagged as scammers [link]
- Implement rules to reduce trust spam. For example any user should be able to leave only one 300-char feedback per week on any other's profile. [link]
|
|
|
|
why hasn't he been red tagged yet ? Done now, as well as his alts leaving fake feedback |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
