Leave the trust system as is but remove trust scores

[Mikestang]

I'm in favor of a system as simple as what eBay has set up.  Positive/negative, with feedback history readily visible.  Easy to use, easy to understand, and not quite so arcane as this forum's "default trust" system.  Which, I've never really understood, because I don't ever trust anything "by default".  Trust is earned one user at a time.

[1714147626]

1714147626

[1714147626]

1714147626

[1714147626]

1714147626

[1714147626]

1714147626

[1714147626]

1714147626

[1714147626]

1714147626

[Bicknellski]

I'm in favor of a system as simple as what eBay has set up.  Positive/negative, with feedback history readily visible.  Easy to use, easy to understand, and not quite so arcane as this forum's "default trust" system.  Which, I've never really understood, because I don't ever trust anything "by default".  Trust is earned one user at a time.

Or in the case of Adam Allcock's ebay account tens of shill accounts but that sort of confidence trick already happens here with sock puppets in threads and for trust feedback which is unmoderated.

[dogie]

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.

[Discussion] On what basis are trust ratings less trustworthy/useful as they age? A lot of them could be from the days of $3, $30, $100 bitcoin so in today's money would be significantly multiplied. Or is that a bad thing....

[TheButterZone]

[Discussion] On what basis are trust ratings less trustworthy/useful as they age? A lot of them could be from the days of $3, $30, $100 bitcoin so in today's money would be significantly multiplied. Or is that a bad thing....

Not a bad thing. For those of us who won't sell lower than the ATH, the BTC we're holding is always worth the most it has ever been.

Don't expire feedback. Once the trusted/untrusted feedback distinction is dropped, chronological sort by newest first (and hell, throw in seclog entries every time the password was changed, to hint at possible account sales since seclog only shows the last 30 days). Sybil attack patterns as well as single-username scumbag outlier ratings will become apparent, especially as they lack evidence, next to unique positives with proper reference links.

[redsn0w]

Basically I agree with @tspacepilot , tha phrase "trade with extreme caution" should be changed to another one.,.. Because we have seen that a lot of people have received a negative trust also if the didn't trade (so what is the purpose of trust system If someone receive a negative trust and there is not a trade involved?).


PS: it is better to change it in a generic warning phrase.

[TheButterZone]

"trust with extreme caution!"

[Muhammed Zakir]

"trust with extreme caution!"

Remove "extreme "?

[ibminer]

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.

What is the issue with showing scores? 

Reducing the amount of visibility a person with negative feedback has is not a good idea.

If someone is too lazy to look at the trust page currently, what makes you think they will do it if the scores go away? 
It is more likely they will just walk into scams more often, which I think will hurt Bitcoin & this forum.

I might be for a disclaimer under the red letters saying something like "verify all trust scores on a case-by-case basis" - and linking it to the users trust page.

In the end, we all have better things to worry about... 

[Mikestang]

"trust with extreme caution!"

Remove "extreme "?

Remove "trust" and "with" and "caution", too.

The warning text is totally unnecessary.  Everyone should be trusted with caution, that is the default human behaviour. Even some people's own family will try to rip them off.  Provide a trust/feedback "score" and I'll determine what to do with it, I don't need the text.

[NeuroticFish]

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?

Actually it's a VERY GOOD idea.
People will learn to look and check all the feedback and decide which deserves to be taken into account and which not.


Maybe, just maybe only Higher ranked ones (Member+? Sr+?) should give trust feedback at all, to avoid too many accounts made or bought to "take down" somebody's trust.

[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?

Actually it's a VERY GOOD idea.
People will learn to look and check all the feedback and decide which deserves to be taken into account and which not.


Maybe, just maybe only Higher ranked ones (Member+? Sr+?) should give trust feedback at all, to avoid too many accounts made or bought to "take down" somebody's trust.

That will be discriminatory against the honest  newbie users (person) bt maybe it will be a good idea, but it will decentralize more the trust system ... it is not a bad idea (at the end).

[NeuroticFish]

Maybe, just maybe only Higher ranked ones (Member+? Sr+?) should give trust feedback at all, to avoid too many accounts made or bought to "take down" somebody's trust.

That will be discriminatory against the honest  newbie users (person) bt maybe it will be a good idea, but it will decentralize more the trust system ... it is not a bad idea (at the end).

I agree it is discriminatory. However, a lot of voices ask for newbie jail and such.
Also, we all know how many lower rank users are created only for spam or scam.

And.. there are plenty of high rank users that can help out the honest newbie in such cases. There default trust members that actually do that currently.

It may not be the best way, but as you said it nicely: it will decentralize the trust system.

[redsn0w]

Maybe, just maybe only Higher ranked ones (Member+? Sr+?) should give trust feedback at all, to avoid too many accounts made or bought to "take down" somebody's trust.

That will be discriminatory against the honest  newbie users (person) bt maybe it will be a good idea, but it will decentralize more the trust system ... it is not a bad idea (at the end).

I agree it is discriminatory. However, a lot of voices ask for newbie jail and such.
Also, we all know how many lower rank users are created only for spam or scam.

And.. there are plenty of high rank users that can help out the honest newbie in such cases. There default trust members that actually do that currently.

It may not be the best way, but as you said it nicely: it will decentralize the trust system.

Sorry I want to say : it will 'centralize' more the trust system not decentralize ... if only the high rank members can leave a trust that it will be a sort of centralization (are you thinking the contrary?).

[ibminer]

Maybe, just maybe only Higher ranked ones (Member+? Sr+?) should give trust feedback at all, to avoid too many accounts made or bought to "take down" somebody's trust.

That will be discriminatory against the honest  newbie users (person) bt maybe it will be a good idea, but it will decentralize more the trust system ... it is not a bad idea (at the end).

I agree it is discriminatory. However, a lot of voices ask for newbie jail and such.
Also, we all know how many lower rank users are created only for spam or scam.

And.. there are plenty of high rank users that can help out the honest newbie in such cases. There default trust members that actually do that currently.

It may not be the best way, but as you said it nicely: it will decentralize the trust system.

Its not decentralization that you want, its centralization with a group you are more comfortable with. I'm not comfortable with all high-ranked members being the default trust list. I can't say I'm 100% comfortable with the current trust list either, but I'm picking my poison. There are too many alts, high-ranked ones also, and it would probably create a nightmare for mods to manage trust abuse, which I think would run rampant in this environment.

[NeuroticFish]

Sorry I want to say : it will 'centralize' more the trust system not decentralize ... if only the high rank members can leave a trust that it will be a sort of centralization (are you thinking the contrary?).

Imho it would be decentralization.

Just compare with the current status: a couple of hand-picked high rank users are in the default trust list and they are "the police". That's centralized.
If the change will happen, less ranks will add feedback indeed, but the feedback will count more than the current "untrusted" feedback. Much more people's feedback will count and the only condition is that you are "old enough" in this forum. Which imho is closer to decentralization.

[ibminer]

Any chance a weight-based voting system would work for feedback?  
Maybe leave trust list the way it is but allow other lower accounts to submit feedback and have other community members vote up/down to give the feedback "weight"... a certain weight needs to be achieved to make it into the "score" ?

Still leaves a higher list of users that can influence a score more dramatically (those in the default trust list) but offers the ability for others to make their vote count and gives everyone a "hand" in the feedback system?

Just thinking off the top of my head, this might be an asinine idea.  

[redsn0w]

Sorry I want to say : it will 'centralize' more the trust system not decentralize ... if only the high rank members can leave a trust that it will be a sort of centralization (are you thinking the contrary?).

Imho it would be decentralization.

Just compare with the current status: a couple of hand-picked high rank users are in the default trust list and they are "the police". That's centralized.
If the change will happen, less ranks will add feedback indeed, but the feedback will count more than the current "untrusted" feedback. Much more people's feedback will count and the only condition is that you are "old enough" in this forum. Which imho is closer to decentralization.

Decentralized trust system (it could never exist) everyone can leave a trust and each trust is worth in the same way. allow less users to left trust is closer to a sort of centralization not the contrary. However the Blazr request is very good in my honest opinion, please remove the scores and much important the 'warning'....