Minor trust score algorithm change

[redsn0w]

I think the default network is pretty solid now. If anyone leaves some questionable feedback it is openly dealt with here in meta. I just think that the scores are too high and will give newbies a false sence of security. If you are new and see some guy with a +10 trust score you assume he is trusted... I think the new formula is alright just the numbers are too high.

Again, an high dark green trust score doesn't mean that the user is pretty "trusted"... everyone should (always) trade with his own diligence. Now this little modification of the trust system will be evaluated in the next few months/years. If someone 'can' suggest a new better thing I think theymos will modify the system another time.

[1715166716]

1715166716

[1715166716]

1715166716

[1715166716]

1715166716

[Blazed]

I think the default network is pretty solid now. If anyone leaves some questionable feedback it is openly dealt with here in meta. I just think that the scores are too high and will give newbies a false sence of security. If you are new and see some guy with a +10 trust score you assume he is trusted... I think the new formula is alright just the numbers are too high.

Again, an high dark green trust score doesn't mean that the user is pretty "trusted"... everyone should (always) trade with his own diligence. Now this little modification of the trust system will be evaluated in the next few months/years. If someone 'can' suggest a new better thing I think theymos will modify the system another time.

It does not matter what it should be, it matters how it is. Most people just use default trust and rely on positive trust scores to judge someone here.

[redsn0w]

I think the default network is pretty solid now. If anyone leaves some questionable feedback it is openly dealt with here in meta. I just think that the scores are too high and will give newbies a false sence of security. If you are new and see some guy with a +10 trust score you assume he is trusted... I think the new formula is alright just the numbers are too high.

Again, an high dark green trust score doesn't mean that the user is pretty "trusted"... everyone should (always) trade with his own diligence. Now this little modification of the trust system will be evaluated in the next few months/years. If someone 'can' suggest a new better thing I think theymos will modify the system another time.

It does not matter what it should be, it matters how it is. Most people just use default trust and rely on positive trust scores to judge someone here.

'Not exactly' when you register a new account you notice that the trust list contain only the DefaultTrust user (it is an automatic thing). So yes most people use DefaultTrust because they feel 'it' correct but it is not always good... see the few people removed in the last months.

PS: it is matter what theorically should be... I always check the history of an user before trade with him (Also if he has +400 as trust score, it doesn't matter .... whne the majority of users will start to think in this way I am sure there will not be scammed users anymore).

[Blazed]

I think the default network is pretty solid now. If anyone leaves some questionable feedback it is openly dealt with here in meta. I just think that the scores are too high and will give newbies a false sence of security. If you are new and see some guy with a +10 trust score you assume he is trusted... I think the new formula is alright just the numbers are too high.

Again, an high dark green trust score doesn't mean that the user is pretty "trusted"... everyone should (always) trade with his own diligence. Now this little modification of the trust system will be evaluated in the next few months/years. If someone 'can' suggest a new better thing I think theymos will modify the system another time.

It does not matter what it should be, it matters how it is. Most people just use default trust and rely on positive trust scores to judge someone here.

'Not exactly' when you register a new account you notice that the trust list contain only the DefaultTrust user (it is an automatic thing). So yes most people use DefaultTrust because they feel 'it' correct but it is not always good... see the few people removed in the last months.

PS: it is matter what theorically should be... I always check the history of an user before trade with him (Also if he has +400 as trust score, it doesn't matter .... whne the majority of users will start to think in this way I am sure there will not be scammed users anymore).

Not really sure what that has to do with what I said...

New users have default trust so when they see people with scores of +10 and +20 they will assume they are trusted. The old system that would be sort of correct, but with the new system it can be someone with only a few old positive ratings.

[shorena]

-snip-
Not really sure what that has to do with what I said...

New users have default trust so when they see people with scores of +10 and +20 they will assume they are trusted. The old system that would be sort of correct, but with the new system it can be someone with only a few old positive ratings.

+10 does not make you trustworthy its the comparisson that makes +10 look high and thus trustworthy. With people like you around (+403 on my list) 10 still looks small.

Besides Im not sure I trusted those fancy numbers when I came here, I wonder why this is a common assumption. IMHO it makes more sense to assume that people comeing here to trade take their time to understand the system first.

[Muhammed Zakir]

What is your opinion about re-adding *negative* trust feedback so that user's m trust rating show as ????

[brunoshady]

-snip-
Not really sure what that has to do with what I said...

New users have default trust so when they see people with scores of +10 and +20 they will assume they are trusted. The old system that would be sort of correct, but with the new system it can be someone with only a few old positive ratings.

Besides Im not sure I trusted those fancy numbers when I came here, I wonder why this is a common assumption. IMHO it makes more sense to assume that people comeing here to trade take their time to understand the system first.

Its not a common assumption people, especially newbies, judge what they can see, and if you have a scammer tag, there is a high posibility that they wont trade with you

[nwfella]

Interesting.  Since this change has gone into effect my trust score dropped from +2 to 0 apparently.

[guitarplinker]

Interesting.  Since this change has gone into effect my trust score dropped from +2 to 0 apparently.

The scoring changes shouldn't have done that. Chances are the people who left that trust were removed from the default trust list instead. I know some level ones removed members from their lists a few weeks back.

[nwfella]

Interesting.  Since this change has gone into effect my trust score dropped from +2 to 0 apparently.

The scoring changes shouldn't have done that. Chances are the people who left that trust were removed from the default trust list instead. I know some level ones removed members from their lists a few weeks back.

Not entirely sure how I would check that but at least it appears as though I can still access the positive feedback left for me even if it isn't reflected in my score.  Not a big deal honestly was just curious.  I doubt the individuals that left me positive feedback where removed from the Defaulttrust list.  I'll have to take a closer look at that a bit later to see what I can find.

Thanks for the reply though

[TECSHARE]

What is your opinion about re-adding *negative* trust feedback so that user's m trust rating show as ????

It is only a matter of time before this is exploited regularly. This is also a good reason to start logging trust rating changes.

[dogie]

What is your opinion about re-adding *negative* trust feedback so that user's m trust rating show as ????

It is only a matter of time before this is exploited regularly. This is also a good reason to start logging trust rating changes.

Regardless of this particular situation, I do think trust ratings should be logged. Because they sit behind a login screen its hard to get a neutral archiver to record something, so someone could delete a rating and go "what rating". It'd be hard to prove to a court that that rating did exist without a neutral archive or server log.

[TECSHARE]

What is your opinion about re-adding *negative* trust feedback so that user's m trust rating show as ????

It is only a matter of time before this is exploited regularly. This is also a good reason to start logging trust rating changes.

Regardless of this particular situation, I do think trust ratings should be logged. Because they sit behind a login screen its hard to get a neutral archiver to record something, so someone could delete a rating and go "what rating". It'd be hard to prove to a court that that rating did exist without a neutral archive or server log.

I have also had people remove a rating before and replace it after I left them a negative, basically making it appear as if I negative rated them first after I had made a complaint about it. As a result the only proof I have of the order of events is a predated post describing the rating.

[TECSHARE]

I have also had people remove a rating before and replace it after I left them a negative, basically making it appear as if I negative rated them first after I had made a complaint about it. As a result the only proof I have of the order of events is a predated post describing the rating.

That is not true. The red question marks are a direct result of the new tally system and not because of any recent editing and/or manipulation.

Lets use bobsag3 aka. borito4 aka. Matt Carsen, who happens to be on the original scammers list and someone you, TECHSHARE, trust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=144143

As you can see, the 'trusted' negative rep was posted more than a year ago.

How do you even know what incident I am referring to? That might help if you want to argue what I said was not true. I don't trust bobsag3, I left a trust rating for him because we transacted. Learn the difference. Also, instead of stalking me perhaps you should get treatment for your psychological issues.

[Hippie Tech]

I have also had people remove a rating before and replace it after I left them a negative, basically making it appear as if I negative rated them first after I had made a complaint about it. As a result the only proof I have of the order of events is a predated post describing the rating.

That is not true. The red question marks are a direct result of the new tally system and not because of any recent editing and/or manipulation.

Lets use bobsag3 aka. borito4 aka. Matt Carsen, who happens to be on the original scammers list and someone you, TECHSHARE, trust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=144143

As you can see, the 'trusted' negative rep was posted more than a year ago.

How do you even know what incident I am referring to? That might help if you want to argue what I said was not true. I don't trust bobsag3, I left a trust rating for him because we transacted. Learn the difference. Also, instead of stalking me perhaps you should get treatment for your psychological issues.

My bad. Your oddly worded quote had me somewhat confused. That statement should have been directed at Muhammed.

What is your opinion about re-adding *negative* trust feedback so that user's m trust rating show as ????

And I am not stalking you. This thread was added to my watchlist weeks ago.

[Muhammed Zakir]

That is not true. The red question marks are a direct result of the new tally system and not because of any recent editing and/or manipulation.

Lets use bobsag3 aka. borito4 aka. Matt Carsen, who happens to be on the original scammers list and someone you, TECHSHARE, trust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=144143

As you can see, the 'trusted' negative rep was posted more than a year ago.

TBH I didn't understand what you said.

If the latest trusted feedback is negative, user's trust rating will show as ???. So I was asking about others' opinions on re-adding negative feedback to make that happen.

[Hippie Tech]

That is not true. The red question marks are a direct result of the new tally system and not because of any recent editing and/or manipulation.

Lets use bobsag3 aka. borito4 aka. Matt Carsen, who happens to be on the original scammers list and someone you, TECHSHARE, trust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=144143

As you can see, the 'trusted' negative rep was posted more than a year ago.

TBH I didn't understand what you said.

If the latest trusted feedback is negative, user's trust rating will show as ???. So I was asking about others' opinions on re-adding negative feedback to make that happen.

Where did you get your info on ??? ?

In my case, re-doing bobsag3's negative trust was not necessary and -ck's positive entry, posted 4 months later, had no effect.

[Quickseller]

That is not true. The red question marks are a direct result of the new tally system and not because of any recent editing and/or manipulation.

Lets use bobsag3 aka. borito4 aka. Matt Carsen, who happens to be on the original scammers list and someone you, TECHSHARE, trust.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=144143

As you can see, the 'trusted' negative rep was posted more than a year ago.

TBH I didn't understand what you said.

If the latest trusted feedback is negative, user's trust rating will show as ???. So I was asking about others' opinions on re-adding negative feedback to make that happen.

That is not true. The first negative rating will cause the previous positive ratings to be disregarded if the net trust score would be positive if all positive trust ratings were to be taken into consideration. After the first negative rating, subsequent negative ratings will cause the negative trust score to increase by a factor of an exponent of 2. Any positive trust ratings after the first negative rating will count as normal.

[Hippie Tech]

For those who may be interested, here is what changing the depth level can do ..

Default trust depth level 0                                        level 1                                                                 level 2


level 3                                                                  level 4

[Muhammed Zakir]

Where did you get your info on ??? ?

In my case, re-doing bobsag3's negative trust was not necessary and -ck's positive entry, posted 4 months later, had no effect.

That is not true. The first negative rating will cause the previous positive ratings to be disregarded if the net trust score would be positive if all positive trust ratings were to be taken into consideration. After the first negative rating, subsequent negative ratings will cause the negative trust score to increase by a factor of an exponent of 2. Any positive trust ratings after the first negative rating will count as normal.

You are right. Stupid mistake of mine. Thanks for correcting!

For those who may be interested, here is what changing the depth level can do ..

Default trust depth level 0                                        level 1                                                                 level 2
[ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv0.jpg[/img] [ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv1.jpg[/img] [ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv2.jpg[/img]

level 3                                                                  level 4
[ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv2.jpg[/img] [ IMG]http://img.techpowerup.org/150621/lv4.jpg[/img]

Others won't see in the way you see unless they add you to their trust list. When you view it, your negative feedback is seen as trusted and it affects trust rating but not for us(who haven't added you).