Minor trust score algorithm change

[lolxxxx]

Quickseller removed from the trust i just saw.

[1714891600]

1714891600

[1714891600]

1714891600

[Blazed]

Quickseller removed from the trust i just saw.

That was before this change happened.

[EcuaMobi]

I agree that the numbers should be scaled back...I kicked it on default trust only and it seems like everyone has huge scores now. Maybe a scale of -100 - +100 would be better. It seems like being trusted will be easier, and that is not a good thing around here.

Yeah, they're way too high in my opinion. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=343102 That guy only has one feedback from me I left over a year ago and he was 1: -0 / +1 the other day and now he's 10: -0 / +1. What are the question marks all about like here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=320943 ? ??: 1 / +2?

Exactly...It really diminishes the value of having earned a lot trust in my opinion. I see people now with high scores that look really trusted all the sudden.. Honestly I think a scale of 1-25 would be really good. It should take years of being honest to get any sort of good reputation here.

IMO the scale doesn't change anything once we get used to it. It's like pricing everything in cents instead of dollars. Soon enough you'd get used to paying 150 cents for a coke instead of USD 1.5. If anything it makes things more detailed. Because there's no decimals in the trust ratings before 0.2 and 0.4 were both shown as 0. Now 2 and 4 are shown differently.

The important part is that everything gets updated to the new scale, for example light green and dark green (which was already changed by theymos). And we must get used to the new scale.

[tidus1097]

Quickseller removed from the trust i just saw.

Makes no difference. Alot of users still respect his opinion. Thusmore, this post is in the wrong section as it does not pretain to the topic.

[Blazed]

I agree that the numbers should be scaled back...I kicked it on default trust only and it seems like everyone has huge scores now. Maybe a scale of -100 - +100 would be better. It seems like being trusted will be easier, and that is not a good thing around here.

Yeah, they're way too high in my opinion. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=343102 That guy only has one feedback from me I left over a year ago and he was 1: -0 / +1 the other day and now he's 10: -0 / +1. What are the question marks all about like here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=320943 ? ??: 1 / +2?

Exactly...It really diminishes the value of having earned a lot trust in my opinion. I see people now with high scores that look really trusted all the sudden.. Honestly I think a scale of 1-25 would be really good. It should take years of being honest to get any sort of good reputation here.

IMO the scale doesn't change anything once we get used to it. It's like pricing everything in cents instead of dollars. Soon enough you'd get used to paying 150 cents for a coke instead of USD 1.5. If anything it makes things more detailed. Because there's no decimals in the trust ratings before 0.2 and 0.4 were both shown as 0. Now 2 and 4 are shown differently.

The important part is that everything gets reflected to the new scale, for example light green and dark green (which was already changed by theymos). And we must get used to the new scale.

I disagree since we have a scammer issue here. I think earning even 1 green trust should be a real hassle. It should be rare to see people with green trust around here with all the scams and B.S. Take my score for example on default trust... +196 that to me is just silly. Maybe on a scale of 1-25 I should be a +5 or even lower.

[Mitchell]

At least darkgreen should be hard to obtain. Getting 15 points is pretty easy with this algorithm.

[EcuaMobi]

IMO the scale doesn't change anything once we get used to it. It's like pricing everything in cents instead of dollars. Soon enough you'd get used to paying 150 cents for a coke instead of USD 1.5. If anything it makes things more detailed. Because there's no decimals in the trust ratings before 0.2 and 0.4 were both shown as 0. Now 2 and 4 are shown differently.

The important part is that everything gets reflected to the new scale, for example light green and dark green (which was already changed by theymos). And we must get used to the new scale.

I disagree since we have a scammer issue here. I think earning even 1 green trust should be a real hassle. It should be rare to see people with green trust around here with all the scams and B.S. Take my score for example on default trust... +196 that to me is just silly. Maybe on a scale of 1-25 I should be a +5 or even lower.

Now the trust is shown as green only when it's at least 5, not 1 as before, so that will help. But I see your point, probably scaling/rounding down would be helpful, especially for the first point(s). Maybe it would make sense to further increase the thresholds for light and dark green.

Also people shouldn't give positive (and negative) trust so easily, especially those on the default trust. For example I really don't think alcaz deserves a trusted positive trust just for sending first $4.40, even if that didn't make his trust green.

[Lauda]

At least darkgreen should be hard to obtain. Getting 15 points is pretty easy with this algorithm.

Exactly. Even though my trust list has just 1 person included (that being you), it has jumped with the new changed.
I'm already: 15: -0 / +2
Although others won't see it that way I guess.

[marcotheminer]

It does seem like the green points are too easy to obtain (easy to seem trusted) with this algorithm.

[Tomatocage]

I don't get it. I probably have more negative trust than anybody else on this forum, but my second # is still 0. Are the trust ratings still weighted (sorry if this has already been answered since I didn't actually read the entire thread).

[master-P]

I don't get it. I probably have more negative trust than anybody else on this forum, but my second # is still 0. Are the trust ratings still weighted (sorry if this has already been answered since I didn't actually read the entire thread).

It only counts users from default trust, no? All the negatives you have are in the untrusted list, as far as I can see at least.

[Quickseller]

I don't get it. I probably have more negative trust than anybody else on this forum, but my second # is still 0. Are the trust ratings still weighted (sorry if this has already been answered since I didn't actually read the entire thread).

It only counts users from default trust, no? All the negatives you have are in the untrusted list, as far as I can see at least.

It only counts users from people within your trust network.

[Tomatocage]

Ah, ok. Thanks for the explanation

[Vod]

I don't get it. I probably have more negative trust than anybody else on this forum, but my second # is still 0. Are the trust ratings still weighted (sorry if this has already been answered since I didn't actually read the entire thread).

After a quick perusal of your trust, I challenge that statement.   

[Tomatocage]

After a quick perusal of your trust, I challenge that statement.   

I stand corrected. Geez man, people getting platinum mad with your ratings.

[dogie]

After a quick perusal of your trust, I challenge that statement.   

I stand corrected. Geez man, people getting platinum mad with your ratings.

I still have way more. Or maybe Bick does, will be close. [BFL "competition"]

[DebitMe]

After a quick perusal of your trust, I challenge that statement.   

I stand corrected. Geez man, people getting platinum mad with your ratings.

I still have way more. Or maybe Bick does, will be close. [BFL "competition"]

Psh, all I got is stupid BA, I need to start outing more scammers.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

My trust network has me at a trust rating of -9999...  

[Vod]

After a quick perusal of your trust, I challenge that statement.   

I stand corrected. Geez man, people getting platinum mad with your ratings.

Most of them are abandoned, throw away accounts.   

[gampher]

Can i ask a clear explanation on what does the 'month' do or its effect? I cant understand it clearly