Why can trust ratings be edited?

[ydngx]

What's the reasoning behind allowing old trust ratings to be removed/altered?
This effectively erases the trust history, letting users change their ratings once an account has been spent (used in a scam & no longer valuable).

Consider this scenario:

1. Being a trusted member, I lend my trust to a scammer.
2. The scammer scams, as scammers do.
3. Upon the completion of a scam, I remove my trust rating, changing it from positive to negative.
4.
5. PROFIT.

Take this account, for instance: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=20968
http://s7.postimg.org/64u2hlxe3/Capture.png

A hero member, all feedback bad. What's to say it wasn't all good before, perhaps from the same users? Any way to check?
*Not suggesting that in this instance ratings were changed after the fact, just using it to illustrate a hypothetical.

[1713977135]

1713977135

[1713977135]

1713977135

[1713977135]

1713977135

[EcuaMobi]

The logic is that anyone can be wrong when leaving a feedback and they must be able to fix it in case evidence is shown or they change their mind for any reason. I guess admins have access to deleted feedback as they do to deleted posts, but I'm not sure.

A lot of people check ratings regularly so if someone trusted misuses that feature hopefully it will come to light. Anyway people should always do their research before trading. Having positive feedback is not enough to be blindly trusted.

[ydngx]

The logic is that anyone can be wrong when leaving a feedback and they must be able to fix it in case evidence is shown or they change their mind for any reason. I guess admins have access to deleted feedback as they do to deleted posts, but I'm not sure.

A lot of people check ratings regularly so if someone trusted misuses that feature hopefully it will come to light. Anyway people should always do their research before trading. Having positive feedback is not enough to be blindly trusted.

Not sure if I made myself clear. Sure, people make mistakes and should be able to correct them. This could be done by adding a negative rating on top of the original, positive one. That would allow me to gauge the credibility of the rater.
For instance, if a user leaves positive ratings to scammers, only adding negative ones once the scam has been completed, I can discount his ratings. If same user does it on regular basis, I'd suspect his complicity in the scams.
See my point?

chmod755: Just trying to figure out if the system could be simply improved. An unamended record of ratings left by a user seems like an easy fix.

[Quickseller]

If enough positive ratings are left on a profile then an account may appear to have positive/green trust when they are a scammer.

It should be noted however that positive trust is often left upon the successful completion of a trade, so a serial scammer could simply be trading with someone who will often leave positive trust after a trade in order to farm their trust rating. 

[ydngx]

If enough positive ratings are left on a profile then an account may appear to have positive/green trust when they are a scammer.

Haven't looked at how the rating numbers are calculated, but presumably leaving a negative feedback nulls the positive feedback left by the same user?

It should be noted however that positive trust is often left upon the successful completion of a trade, so a serial scammer could simply be trading with someone who will often leave positive trust after a trade in order to farm their trust rating. 

Not being able to change/delete positive trust at a later date would discourage such trust spam/abuse. Would surely eliminate most of the "trust loan" spam.
Seems like a good idea?

[Quickseller]

If enough positive ratings are left on a profile then an account may appear to have positive/green trust when they are a scammer.

Haven't looked at how the rating numbers are calculated, but presumably leaving a negative feedback nulls the positive feedback left by the same user?

no, it does not.

It should be noted however that positive trust is often left upon the successful completion of a trade, so a serial scammer could simply be trading with someone who will often leave positive trust after a trade in order to farm their trust rating. 

Not being able to change/delete positive trust at a later date would discourage such trust spam/abuse. Would surely eliminate most of the "trust loan" spam.
Seems like a good idea?

The leaving of positive trust is what shows when someone completed a trade honestly. If someone were to complete many deals over time with the other user sometimes sending first then they are probably an honest trader.

The key is looking at more then just the trust score, you should read the comments that others have left in order to determine how much it would make sense for them to be trusted with

[ydngx]

If enough positive ratings are left on a profile then an account may appear to have positive/green trust when they are a scammer.

Haven't looked at how the rating numbers are calculated, but presumably leaving a negative feedback nulls the positive feedback left by the same user?

no, it does not.

Seems to actually throw the trust into negative. As a test, I've left you two trusts - one positive, one negative (will delete if you want):
http://s22.postimg.org/3t4m79zzl/Capture.png
this is the result:
http://s21.postimg.org/e9afz7upz/Capture.png
So it all works out. leaving a negative after a positive labels you as untrusted.

It should be noted however that positive trust is often left upon the successful completion of a trade, so a serial scammer could simply be trading with someone who will often leave positive trust after a trade in order to farm their trust rating. 

Not being able to change/delete positive trust at a later date would discourage such trust spam/abuse. Would surely eliminate most of the "trust loan" spam.
Seems like a good idea?

The leaving of positive trust is what shows when someone completed a trade honestly. If someone were to complete many deals over time with the other user sometimes sending first then they are probably an honest trader.

The key is looking at more then just the trust score, you should read the comments that others have left in order to determine how much it would make sense for them to be trusted with

I guess I still haven't made my self clear. I *want* to be able to read the comments, see all the trust left by a user, not just the most recent edit.
If I am leaving positive trust to scammers, only to change it to negative once the scammers have been caught, wouldn't you like to know this?
Would you not question my judgement more, knowing this?

[Quickseller]

The "value" of positive trust increases over time. So if you leave a positive trust today, it will have very little affect on the trust score of the person receiving it. When calculating positive trust score, the number on the very right is multiplied times the number of months since their first trust rating and then divided by 10 in order to get the trust score (the number on the very left). As you can see in your example, the trust rating on the person you left positive trust for did not cause the very right number to increase at all.

I believe that this is the most recent formula as to how trust ratings are calculated. Please note that there is nothing in the formula that checks for conflicting trust reports sent by the same person (*the formula for how negative trust is calculated is not accurate)

[Sarthak]

Because Bicointalk believes that Bad people Can Get good in some point of time! Anyways people on default trust rarely do any mischievous activity like that because they're afraid that they'll get excluded from the default trust

[chaosknight]

the reason behind allowing old trust ratings to be removed/altered is that at start some people might do fair trade to gain trust and then start their scamming game using the trust they gained at start if they know they their trust rating can't be removed/changed.if some one if a legit guy then it didn't guarantee that he will a good guy forever,also people are selling accounts here so scammers can buy trusted accounts and scams if they know that their trust will remain there forever.

[ydngx]

Not sure what you're saying, so I'll try question/answer format. (Agree/Disagree)

1. If Andy is leaving positive trust to scammers, only to change it to negative once the scammers have been caught, I'd like to know this.
2. If Andy could not delete the ratings he left at a later date, he's likely to put more thought in the ones he does leave.
3. Inability to delete ratings, days after posting them, may reduce some forms of trust abuse, without creating possibilities for new ones.
4. A positive rating, left at an earlier date, counts less toward the trust score than a more recent, negative rating. This eliminates the need for deletion if the rated user turns out to be a scammer.

Sarthak: I too believe that bad people can become good, though I'd like to make the decision myself, rather than leaving it up to the forum.  Further, I'm not concerned with bad feedback being removed. I'm talking about *positive* feedback being removed.

chaosknight: To delete a positive rating, the user who left it has to do so. If same user simply leaves a negative rating, his positive one can no longer be exploited. See above.

[Quickseller]

1 - I am not sure this would be a good idea. All it would should is that a trade was done. It would also give people less of an incentive to resolve any scam allegations against them, making it more of a moot point to leave negative trust when someone scams. I will go with disagree
2 - There are many people who have acted honestly for a long time then decided to turn scammer. At the time a trust rating is left it would be possible that someone finds it reasonable to leave such rating. Also some people actively trade on the forum for a long time prior to being put on default trust so they might be more liberal in giving positive trust prior to being added to default trust. Disagree.
3 - Disagree. See response to 1
4 - Someone who has traded honestly over time should be shown as more trustworthy then someone who only recently traded honestly. This would also make it significantly easier to "farm" positive trust. Disagree

[ydngx]

1. If Andy is leaving positive trust to scammers, only to change it to negative once the scammers have been caught, I'd like to know this.

1 - I am not sure this would be a good idea. All it would should is that a trade was done. It would also give people less of an incentive to resolve any scam allegations against them, making it more of a moot point to leave negative trust when someone scams. I will go with disagree

For the sake of this conversation, let's allow that the ability to remove past negative trust is a good thing. That's not what I'm addressing here. I'm talking about the ability to remove *positive* trust ratings once a person has been shown to be a scammer.
Would you be good with disallowing removal of prior *positive* ratings?

2. If Andy could not delete the ratings he left at a later date, he's likely to put more thought in the ones he does leave.

2 - There are many people who have acted honestly for a long time then decided to turn scammer. At the time a trust rating is left it would be possible that someone finds it reasonable to leave such rating. Also some people actively trade on the forum for a long time prior to being put on default trust so they might be more liberal in giving positive trust prior to being added to default trust. Disagree.

Not sure why it's relevant. I'm for leaving *all* the ratings in place. If you've been more liberal with your ratings in the past, I'd like to be able to form my own opinion regarding your current ratings. For instance, if you've trusted all the scammers on this forum, and later removed that trust & replaced it with negatives, I would, at best, find your judgement to be suspect. I would most certainly rather know than not - knowledge is power, and all that. The trust system, like bitcoin, is a trust ledger, and one which can be edited at any point is pretty worthless.

4. A positive rating, left at an earlier date, counts less toward the trust score than a more recent, negative rating. This eliminates the need for deletion if the rated user turns out to be a scammer.

4 - Someone who has traded honestly over time should be shown as more trustworthy then someone who only recently traded honestly. This would also make it significantly easier to "farm" positive trust. Disagree

Not sure how to interpret that as a reply to my question. Sure, someone who has traded honestly over time should be considered more trustworthy. How would not being able to edit the past feedback affect this?
And how would inability to delete ratings be instrumental in "trust farming"?
Seems nonsensical, explain?

[Bobsurplus]

Nahh this trust thing is fucked up.. I been here for ages and never fucked over anyone on a deal. I've gone above and beyond to help members in the community be it through donations to help save a dying dog, or to help salty spatoon get the new kicks he wanted off ebay. I've done $1000's worth of btc to skill trades with multiple vendors and now some loser https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=202098 who has not posted since 2014 got added to the default trust list and at trust 2!! 

WTF...

For real though.. How do I fix this, I dont like others seeing this bullshit under my name and and this fruit sharp has no right to be added to the defult trust.

Anyone know who I can co about fixing this situation?

[ydngx]

... now some loser https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=202098 who has not posted since 2014 got added to the default trust list and at trust 2!!  

Weird. Checked the link and you're right - no recent posts. Bitcointalk hacked?

Anyone know who I can co about fixing this situation?

1. Use burner accounts when there's a chance the things you say/do might upset someone.
2. Buy a trusted account to use as your main one.

Don't know what else to say, place has gone to the dogs lately.

[Bobsurplus]

... now some loser https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=202098 who has not posted since 2014 got added to the default trust list and at trust 2!!  

Weird. Checked the link and you're right - no recent posts. Bitcointalk hacked?

Anyone know who I can co about fixing this situation?

1. Use burner accounts when there's a chance the things you say/do might upset someone.
2. Buy a trusted account to use as your main one.

Don't know what else to say, place has gone to the dogs lately.

Nahh man,.. I dont use shills.. Im me,.... I am who I am and I dont hide it.. .. But really this is fucked up.

[Bobsurplus]

Anyone know who I can co about fixing this situation?

You actually offered altcoin investment advice for BTC? Sounds like you deserve it.

'

Quit your bitching because if you had the balls and ability to do what I did you would d have done it too.

You know there is a big business with selling investment advice, a real big one and its fully legit. Anyway.. I never scammed anyone here.. Only people redtagging me are the haters who dont like seeing other doing things and making money.

[Bobsurplus]

Quit your bitching because if you had the balls and ability to do what I did you would d have done it too.

You know there is a big business with selling investment advice, a real big one and its fully legit. Anyway.. I never scammed anyone here.. Only people redtagging me are the haters who dont like seeing other doing things and making money.

I don't provide investment advice for pump and dump scams – only a few people have ever used those "altcoins" (only LTC and DOGE had some legit uses, but even those are hardly worth mentioning)

So because you think all the alts have no uses im a scammer because I sold investment advice, ran marketing groups ect...

Comon now, that's just silly. Some of the richest brokers, investment fund managers and bankers are the richest because they sell advice and help their clients make money. Which I did might I add.

And P.s. You dont provide advice because you cant and if you could you would be and making money off it. Its that simple.

[Bobsurplus]

And P.s. You dont provide advice because you cant and if you could you would be and making money off it. Its that simple.

What you are doing is illegal – only a Registered Investment Advisor is allowed to provide investment advice. You deserved that rating.

So do your part. Start lobbying for regulation in the alt market. But for now it's legal and made me a fortune. Why you gotta hate?

[Bobsurplus]

But for now it's legal and made me a fortune. Why you gotta hate?

No, it's not. If it was legit you wouldn't have a bad rating on your profile. You're the one bitching about that. Have fun with your 'fortune'...

I have that bullshit because people here are buying accounts adding them to the default trust list and then selling trust through them..

No fuck off kid and go play with your satoshis.