Suggestion for the trust settings

[dogie]

Overall I would actually still gain if we did show untrusted.

That's two different things, counting all ratings as trusted, and 'showing' all ratings by default.

[1715296259]

1715296259

[1715296259]

1715296259

[1715296259]

1715296259

[1715296259]

1715296259

[1715296259]

1715296259

[Lauda]

I think the idea was to leave it as it is, but display(!) untrusted feedback by default. If you create a new account you by default only see the trust feedback by those on the DT list. The suggestion - as I understood it - is to change that and show all feedback. The rating is still only influenced by those on DT (or your personal trust list ofc) and the trusted ratings are still on top.

Yeah that is something else. However I wouldn't agree with doing that either. A lot of members are going to have 'spam' in their trust just because it is now visible. A portion of users get scammed easily, even when there is no trust or there is negative trust. What would happen if they started reading lots "positive" ratings?
If only a single member leaves a negative rating, and then the user leaves himself positive from 10 other accounts it is going to be often disregarded (even if it is on top, it is still followed by 10 positive which would be clearly visible).

[TECSHARE]

Well i might agree with you but are you sure people got scammed because they didnt read the untrusted feedback? How do you get scammed exactly, pretty much all scammers are marked as red by a default trust member anyways

This is exactly the kind of bullshit that gets noobs scammed, telling them that users filter out scammers here effectively. This is one of the main reasons I am against scam busting, it only gives noobs a false sense of security and just delays scammers at best.

Im saying that all proven scammers are marked with red, whats your point? If you dont want to get scammed just use escrow, it doesnt get any easier than that. I dont see how that would get a noob scammed, im pretty sure noobs dont trust other users because they are not red marked, they peobably will trust a user with some green trust

 As far as them being "proven scammers", proof based on what, the fact that some trust vigilante marked them red on a guess?  I know what you are TRYING to say, what you are ignoring is that it gives noobs a false sense of security. Also no one builds trust using escrow, people building a reputation inherently have incentive to trust or get others to trust them. Of course noobs magically just know all these rules to not get ripped off via osmosis do they? Noobs trust other users when people like you go around saying things like "pretty much all scammers are marked as red by a default trust member anyways".

Im talking about proven scammers on scam accusations, scammers that scammed money already they are always and i mean ALWAYS marked as red, there is even a thread made by tomatocage with all the scam sites, proven scam sites, based on evidence. It shouldnt really give noobs a false sense of security, nothing its 100% secure. You are saying that because proven scammers are marked as red noobs would think anyone else who is not on red is trusted, i dont think thats the case.

You convince yourself of whatever you like, clearly I am not going to get you to examine your actions from an outside perspective. Noobs are called noobs because they DON'T KNOW ANY OF THIS. You can say "I don't think this is the case" all day long, but the fact is you are giving them a false sense of security, putting them at risk, regardless of your willful ignorance of it.