Leave the trust system as is but remove trust scores

[Blazr]

Just a random thought. Leave the trust system as it is, but remove the trust scores shown on the profile etc. To evaluate someones trustworthiness, users should open their trust page, review the feedback and evaluate the users trustworthiness for themselves.

So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea? will it stop "abuse" of the trust system? will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?

[1713546203]

1713546203

[Bicknellski]

Remove all levels of trust  or default trust.

Everyone same level.

Free for all let the market determine the value of red marks not just a few people hand picked.

[dogie]

So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea?

Warnings are to prevent something bad happening, so hiding them isn't conducive to that.

will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?

Those that need protecting the most won't, which is the problem.

Free for all let the market people with the most accounts determine the value of red marks not just a few people hand picked.

Fixed.

[redsn0w]

Just a random thought. Leave the trust system as it is, but remove the trust scores shown on the profile etc. To evaluate someones trustworthiness, users should open their trust page, review the feedback and evaluate the users trustworthiness for themselves.

So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea? will it stop "abuse" of the trust system? will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?

Good idea, but a score would be exist always (as part of trust system). I do not think your idea will be added or realized (because also without trust scores the users will not go checkout the trust profile).

[Quickseller]

There are a number of people who have very high trust scores because of one or two trades several years ago. I have always wondered just how safe it would be to trade with them verses someone who has a lower (but still positive) trust score with a lot of positive ratings, including several recently. If I had to guess, I would say the later person would be a safer person to trust your money with.

[Bicknellski]

Here is a thought.

Avoid VAT scams and Escrows that hide their identities. And make double sure they are not on the Default Trust list ever again.

[hilariousandco]

So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea?

Warnings are to prevent something bad happening, so hiding then isn't conducive to that.

will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?

Those that need protecting the most won't, which is the problem.

Exactly. Most people wont check. Look how many people got scammed by newbs over in the auction sub with the ad slots. The trust system works well as a warning system 99% of the time, but of course there are always issues and abuses but they should be dealt with when they arise. Scams would definitely go up if we got rid of the red warning.

[SaltySpitoon]

Just a random thought. Leave the trust system as it is, but remove the trust scores shown on the profile etc. To evaluate someones trustworthiness, users should open their trust page, review the feedback and evaluate the users trustworthiness for themselves.

So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea? will it stop "abuse" of the trust system? will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?

I proposed that a long while ago. I agree, people rely way too heavily on the green or red numbers, when they should really be reading feedback on a case by case basis.

Remove all levels of trust  or default trust.

Everyone same level.

Free for all let the market determine the value of red marks not just a few people hand picked.

I would be all for this as well, if you could figure out a way to prevent trust spam by people with hundreds of alts. Absolutely no weight would make the trust system as useful as forum polls. I'd actually be for seeing what would happen if default trust was removed, and people were forced to create their own trust lists right now. The system has been around long enough that people should know how to make it work best, but I feel that not much would change, people would still rely on a trust system built by a couple of well known members.

[Bicknellski]

No doubt it will be abused. It is being "abused" now as well.

If it is supposed to be unmoderated why have a default level?

[Muhammed Zakir]

+1. I support this.

No doubt it will be abused. It is being "abused" now as well.

If it is supposed to be unmoderated why have a default level?

Probably to avoid spam. If everyone have same power, shills/scammers will win against legit users.

[RocketSingh]

Just a random thought. Leave the trust system as it is, but remove the trust scores shown on the profile etc. To evaluate someones trustworthiness, users should open their trust page, review the feedback and evaluate the users trustworthiness for themselves.

So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea? will it stop "abuse" of the trust system? will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?

+1

Remove all levels of trust  or default trust.

Everyone same level.

Free for all let the market determine the value of red marks not just a few people hand picked.

+1

Both are good idea. There will be abuse, but there are ways to handle that...

i. Restrict trust feedback power to a minimum certain level... say Member/Full Member.

ii. Have proper warning in each and every forum, like now given with newbie messages.

These wont stop some account farmers, but you can not save a chicken either. Centralized trust, like DefaultTrust are bringing in centralized abuse, which is a bigger threat than some newbie screaming scam after trying convert 0.01 BTC to 1 BTC overnight.

[tspacepilot]

Just a random thought. Leave the trust system as it is, but remove the trust scores shown on the profile etc. To evaluate someones trustworthiness, users should open their trust page, review the feedback and evaluate the users trustworthiness for themselves.

So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea? will it stop "abuse" of the trust system? will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?

I proposed that a long while ago. I agree, people rely way too heavily on the green or red numbers, when they should really be reading feedback on a case by case basis.

Remove all levels of trust  or default trust.

Everyone same level.

Free for all let the market determine the value of red marks not just a few people hand picked.

I would be all for this as well, if you could figure out a way to prevent trust spam by people with hundreds of alts. Absolutely no weight would make the trust system as useful as forum polls. I'd actually be for seeing what would happen if default trust was removed, and people were forced to create their own trust lists right now. The system has been around long enough that people should know how to make it work best, but I feel that not much would change, people would still rely on a trust system built by a couple of well known members.

About the bolded, me too!   A softer alternative might be to keep the default trust list around, but make it an opt-in.  So, a new user has a blank trust list, but when you got to your trust settings you see some info about how to add "DefaultTrust" if you want a starter list and don't want to make your own.

@OP, a similar idea, which I proposed in another thread, was to not remove the "scores" or the warning, but to change the text to something more descriptive.  Right now, it's the inflammatory "Warning...Extreme Caution".  But what if it said "This person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list.  If the latter was implemented, people who don't know how the system works might react "huh, my trust list?" and then figure out that they have a trust list that they can edit and investigate.  As things stand, "Warning..." it looks like a message from God or something, not like something that has to do with your own settings.

[dogie]

I would be all for this as well, if you could figure out a way to prevent trust spam by people with hundreds of alts. Absolutely no weight would make the trust system as useful as forum polls. I'd actually be for seeing what would happen if default trust was removed, and people were forced to create their own trust lists right now. The system has been around long enough that people should know how to make it work best, but I feel that not much would change, people would still rely on a trust system built by a couple of well known members.

About the bolded, me too!   A softer alternative might be to keep the default trust list around, but make it an opt-in.  So, a new user has a blank trust list, but when you got to your trust settings you see some info about how to add "DefaultTrust" if you want a starter list and don't want to make your own.

[Cut down the quote for space]. Isn't that sort of the same thing though? If people wanted to use trust, 95% of them would simply check the box to use DefaultTrust rather than make their own list. Then all you've done is split the forum into 20% users using DefaultTrust, 75% of users using nothing and 5% using custom lists. Which again defeats the purpose of the trust system which is to protect those more vulnerable 75%.

[Vod]

Wish I could comment on this, but I'll be accused of being biased.   

[Joca97]

this is a bad idea,lots of people will abuse the sistem on first sight
and more scams will come to the forum,so trust of members would be really low!

[TheButterZone]

1) Remove the numbers in the poster_info cell, they're too vague, and only tied to trust networks
2) Put a red highlight on the trust link for EVERY SINGLE USER who has received any positive or negative trust rating, rather than 100% neutrals or not a single rating at all.
3) Like Salty, I would also be for seeing what would happen if default trust was removed.

Why #2? Because positives can be left by A) scammer alts B) account-abandoners who won't modify their trust when an undeniable scammer is found C) ____. Negatives can also be left by A) account-abandoners B) scammer alts C) those in the wrong D) _____.

[Vod]

Why #2? Because positives can be left by A) scammer alts B) account-abandoners who won't modify their trust when an undeniable scammer is found C) ____. Negatives can also be left by A) account-abandoners B) scammer alts C) those in the wrong D) _____.

Remove trust left by any account that hasn't logged in for xx months?

[tidus1097]

Why #2? Because positives can be left by A) scammer alts B) account-abandoners who won't modify their trust when an undeniable scammer is found C) ____. Negatives can also be left by A) account-abandoners B) scammer alts C) those in the wrong D) _____.

Remove trust left by any account that hasn't logged in for xx months?

Does the "xx" resemble double digit months? So anything higher than 10+ months would be acceptable? I would be ok with this. Maybe 1 year without logging in and their trust scores reset or something to that effect. This puts me in mind of Haploid https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18062 unfortunately. I can't seem to get that out of my head today for some reason even though I didn't know him and if its even true. But back on topic. They should be a way if someone was unable to log in for a year to recover their trust to if the incident presented itself.

[Vod]

Why #2? Because positives can be left by A) scammer alts B) account-abandoners who won't modify their trust when an undeniable scammer is found C) ____. Negatives can also be left by A) account-abandoners B) scammer alts C) those in the wrong D) _____.

Remove trust left by any account that hasn't logged in for xx months?

Does the "xx" resemble double digit months? So anything higher than 10+ months would be acceptable? I would be ok with this. Maybe 1 year without logging in and their trust scores reset or something to that effect. This puts me in mind of Haploid https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18062 unfortunately. I can't seem to get that out of my head today for some reason even though I didn't know him and if its even true. But back on topic. They should be a way if someone was unable to log in for a year to recover their trust to if the incident presented itself.

After thinking about it, not so sure this is a good idea.  Think about all the people who left Bitcointalk in disgust after $username scammed them.  They would never come back  so their feedback would eventually become irrelevant and TF would eventually be able to scam again.   

[botany]

After thinking about it, not so sure this is a good idea.  Think about all the people who left Bitcointalk in disgust after $username scammed them.  They would never come back  so their feedback would eventually become irrelevant and TF would eventually be able to scam again.   

Would differentiating between positive and negative feedback solve this? Positive feedback gets expired/removed if the feedback giver doesn't login for a year. Negative feedback stays unless the feedback giver manually removes it.