After some small changes, URLs should be okay now. They'll show up as clear text.

Update: It shows this:
Starting from the next update, I'll fix this (by removing everything after the first double quotation mark).

To answer this: user dok7122 has made only 5 posts since I started my new scraper. I still have 30k files to upload, so it'll take about 8 more hours.
The rest of the users' posts should be updated too, although I haven't properly tested the output.

Quoted and Verified.

I'm not sure what you're going for, but let's not start risking our Bitcoin addresses!

You mean the msgID: 28856522, older topics can still get new posts.

This still requires scraping many pages of post history to know how many posts each user made before or after this moment.

---

User squatz1 (full history)

• Received a total of 352 Merit up to last Friday.
• Received 8 Merit (2.27%) for 3 (0.19%) of 1577 posts created before the introduction of Merit (0.0050 Merit per old post).
• Received 341 Merit (96.87%) for 84 (5.21%) of 1610 posts created after the introduction of Merit (0.2118 Merit per new post).
• Received 3 Merit (0.85%) for posts that are now deleted (or off-limit (Staff/VIP Section)).

---

It's not really fair as ignores the number of posts made. I made a topic on this a year ago, but I only show data for users on request.

At the risk of talking to myself a bit:
I made this:

This is slightly related, so I'm posting it here too:

It's supposed to be part of Viewing unedited posts and deleted posts, view per post, per user or per topic, but I haven't had the time to complete it (yet).

This account should show on http://loyce.club/archive/members/39/395685.html, but there's nothing there yet.
I'm currently running an update (it's not automated yet because it has some problems), and this link should start working later today (or tomorrow). It takes a while as it's a lot of data to go through, and a lot of files to update.

Reserved (and I can't really delete it because the original post was Merited).

In June this year, I created LoyceV's (Personal) Trust Flag viewer [daily updates] in Meta:

This topic allows anyone to add comments to Flags (in my Flag viewer, not on the actual forum Flags).

Format (use this format!):
Flag 9: This is a test-comment.
(don't quote other users who posted this)

Result (source):


Your comment should show up in the next update. I create an update once a day.
I keep daily snapshots, so even after editing or removing a comment, older versions are preserved.  

Feel free to discuss this here too, anything without the correct format will (or should.....) be ignored by my scraper.

Restrictions

• Only the first 200 characters of each comment are shown.
• Only one comment per Flag per user (if you post more than one comment for the same Flag, only the first comment will be shown).
• You can add a new post or edit an existing post to add more comments. I scrape all posts in this topic once a day to update my Trust Flag viewer.
• Currently, it's sorted using the same order as this topic. If this becomes popular, I might change this (for instance: show the Flag creator's comment first, then the Accused user's comment, then all others).
• You can delete a comment to have it removed from my next update.

Self-moderated
Don't try to break this, it's barely tested. If anything goes wrong, please post.
Don't try to abuse this. I don't want to make a blacklist, but I will if I have to.
English only (after all, this is an English board).
Don't add HTML tags or smileys.
I don't want to censor this, but please refrain from using foul language, and stick to the facts. Other users can add new comments to go with your comment if needed.

---

---

See [overview] LoyceV's useful data on Bitcointalk for more of my forum-related topics

When I wrote about Flags that don't have a valid Reference link, I meant "not valid" from a webbrowser's perspective: The link doesn't exist (anymore).
The description on my Trust Flag viewer is better: "Reference topic does not exist".

Many Flags have a Reference link with invalid content, but I can't highlight those without doing it manually.

I have suggested before that I can allow users to add comments to my Trust Flag viewer, but haven't had any feedback to this.

I don't really get why LFC_Bitcoin uses my topic on scammer BetKing.io as a reference topic for a Flag on game-protect.

Anything that's covered by forum rules, should be handled by Mods.

Now that I have a bit more time, I'll share my opinion on this thread.

How did he/they cheat the bounty? In the thread, I don't see any limitations on the number of accounts anyone can use. It may be unethical, but I don't think it's against the rules.
I have a hard time believing any Bounty thread that promised $1,000 in their made-up Token per week, and since they thrive on spam, I don't think they even mind if someone joins with more than one account.

These are the posts:
I can't read it, but considering the low amount of Merit, and the fact that some of those posts were Merited by others too, I can't say this is a clear case of Merit abuse.

I don't think this is debated by the involved accounts, so I assume this is correct.

From what I've seen, the large majority of all bounty spammers uses fake Twitter accounts that only have other bounty spammers as followers.

I've seen the "he's my family member" excuse too many times, and I can't verify it, so I'll ignore that part. But the rest: I see 2 users who each earned much more Merit than most other users, and must belong to the top "bounty hunters" in terms of Merit earnings.

You know this is Bitcointalk, right? Wait, let me quote theymos on KYC:
I said earlier that I wouldn't be willing to have a video chat because that's close to doxing myself, but an equally important reason is that I don't want to ask anyone else to do this either.

You can have more than one account indeed.

I really want this to be true, it sounds like a good thing to have.

I've actually considered creating accounts for my kids already, but haven't done it yet. They're too young now, but when they're old enough, the first thing I want to teach them is how to protect their privacy online. I'm not sure yet if I'd want them to declare family relationships online, especially when it comes to Bitcoin! Anyone knowing who I am could accidentally dox me by doxing himself.

I can't find this back in the unedited scraped post, nor in the current post so I can't confirm this was really posted. But if it was, it has been edited again, so I guess that means be.open agrees it was uncalled for.
One way or another, I don't really care about rude comments. It says more about the person saying it than the person they're talking about.
Whatever happens, always try to stay friendly

With 9 more inclusions than exclusions on lovesmayfamilis, that's not very likely to happen.

---

---

I want to quote myself from LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system:
I can't read most of their posts, but based on the amount of Merit they received, they must have been contributing something to this forum. And I think we must guard against scaring off users for relatively small things.
May I remind lovesmayfamilis that (s)he him/herself was banned, and got unbanned with a signature ban until next year?

---

Because lovesmayfamilis Trusts my judgement:
I suggest to give this user (or these users?) the benefit of the doubt, and a chance to help improve this forum, and turn this into neutral tags.

Thanks again I gave up on my time machine.

I have a different take on this: Someone who's had many small loans apparently is often out of money, which probably means he's also "bad with money" in general.
I'd much rather trust someone who doesn't need the money at all, than someone who's all the time in need of small loans.

You beat me to it, it's actually included in the OP:

I disagree
It takes a lot of effort to be recognized on this forum for "fighting for good", while it's very easy to earn positive feedback by doing a few trades.
As an example: geophphreigh, has +4 positive feedback. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I am saying it's very easy to gain Trust by buying or selling some items on the Collectibles board.
If anyone wanted to game trust, that's the place to be!

I have received quite a bit of positive feedback for things like "one of the best members of the forum". And although I highly appreciate those, I think it's up to any future trade partner to judge the value of those feedbacks. But I sure as hell disagree that this is "easy to game": it's a hell of a lot of work!
I'd say there's a difference between a reputation based on trades, and a reputation based on forum actions, but unfortunately it's all dumped into the same feedback scores.

There's a risk though with Trusting "scam busters", and warningsigns is a good example of that: I knew the account for posting many warnings against possible scams, and in the end it disappeared with close to 5 BTC from a loan.

It all comes down to putting feedback into perspective. If I start asking for 5 BTC loans, you shouldn't just trust it! I think I can get away with $200, and probably more, but part of having a good reputation is staying far away from the limits of this reputation.

I can't wait for BillyBurns to try and defend this one!

Dean's last post on Bitcointalk:
This is something I've seen from many scammers: just keep pretending everything is okay, deny accusations, and hope for new victims to give him more money!

Allow me to speculate a bit: what if he's jailed already? BetKing.io was last online on September 28, and letting the domain expire would make sense if he's in jail since (as far as I know) Dean was running a one-man operation where he pulled all the strings.
There's a flaw in my theory though: the domain name was extended recently, although the site is still down.