Suggestion for the trust settings

[CoinTerminator]

I am new member here but i saw so many people here got scammed because they have not read the untrusted feedback because its NOT displayed by default........

But i saw there is an option in your profile you can tick to show untrusted feedback by default , maybe admin should do this ticked by default so users will maybe less scammed..........

[1715020452]

1715020452

[1715020452]

1715020452

[1715020452]

1715020452

[1715020452]

1715020452

[KWH]

I am new member here but i saw so many people here got scammed because they have not read the untrusted feedback because its NOT displayed by default........

But i saw there is an option in your profile you can tick to show untrusted feedback by default , maybe admin should do this ticked by default so users will maybe less scammed..........

Due diligence; you must do your part BEFORE making any deal. This is on YOU, not the forum.

[Lauda]

Untrusted feedback is feedback from members that are untrusted. Enabling this would completely mess up the system and destroy trading on this forum. I've seen no suggestions so far that are better than what the forum currently offers.
There are people who are actively leaving negative ratings to potential scammers.

[ajrah]

There is nothing wrong with suggestion, but They can be easily scammed because of avoiding to use escrow, and most of them are newbies.

IMO, Some people on marketplace section ( especially newbies ) doing trade just to gain trust , only few of them are legit, the rest are scammer itself who want to gain trust as many as they can, they will start to exchange with small amount regularly even they didn't need it, when they already had a bunch of trust they will planning to scam big amount.

[funtotry]

Untrusted feedback should DEFINITELY be shown by default, however not in the trust rating you see next to your profile picture on the posts you make.
Untrusted feedback should be taken a little less seriously, however having it hidden by default just makes it potentially less chance of seeing they are a scammer. Untrusted people (like me) may leave a trust rating, with solid proof that they are a scammer, but people who do not have "show untrusted feedback" on, will not see it and continue deal with that user and might get scammed.

[jambola2]

If you choose to see the untrusted feedback along with the trusted feedback, there are chances that most users will have -9999 trust ratings (specially the DT members) as many scammers do leave them these ratings as a revenge feedback. It's better to have your personalized trust system where you add your own trusted users in the list. The Default list is also good enough but when you deal with anyone, do check if the untrusted ratings mention about scam attempt and the reference link mentioned.

You clearly have no clue about what you're talking about.
Toggling that setting allows the feedback to be seen, but doesn't suddenly give them trusted status.

I don't think making untrusted feedback visible is completely necessary, as even before I toggled the setting, I tended to click the "Show Untrusted Feedbck" button on each page.
OP, I think you should look a bit more thoroughly, even to the point of checking the reference links and thepeople giving the trust in an attempt to check if the trust is valid and if it is possible that the trust givers are alts.

[XinXan]

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

[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.

[erikalui]

You clearly have no clue about what you're talking about.
Toggling that setting allows the feedback to be seen, but doesn't suddenly give them trusted status.

I don't think making untrusted feedback visible is completely necessary, as even before I toggled the setting, I tended to click the "Show Untrusted Feedbck" button on each page.
OP, I think you should look a bit more thoroughly, even to the point of checking the reference links and thepeople giving the trust in an attempt to check if the trust is valid and if it is possible that the trust givers are alts.

My bad. I thought this option would make the untrusted feedback appear trusted. I too actually got scammed due to this option not being visible by default and that time I dint even know what's the difference between trusted and untrusted feedback. I agree with the OP to have this option enabled by default.

[XinXan]

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

[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".

[ajareselde]

No, i don't think it should be shown by default, although i keep it as shown because it's not hard to see the "false" feedback from scammers themselves.
However, there are cases where DT member didn't yet tag scammer's accounts, but even then it's just a matter of time.

The fact is that forum trust shouldn't be considered as a guarantee, because anyone can buy an account with green trust and use it to scam, and maybe the best way to protect
your coins is by simply using escrow from old trusted members.

Maybe an alternative to newbie security is a better answer. Like how we have that "what is bitcoin" video, maybe there should be "bitcointalk introduction" video, explaining the basics of how things
work around here. We are way beyond being a "usual type" of forum, and something like this as an "intro" when registering may be a good idea?
There are bunch of people in services section that would make a decent piece for cheap.

cheers

[dogie]

Untrusted feedback should DEFINITELY be shown by default, however not in the trust rating you see next to your profile picture on the posts you make.
Untrusted feedback should be taken a little less seriously, however having it hidden by default just makes it potentially less chance of seeing they are a scammer. Untrusted people (like me) may leave a trust rating, with solid proof that they are a scammer, but people who do not have "show untrusted feedback" on, will not see it and continue deal with that user and might get scammed.

Most untrusted feedback is garbage, and any serious scam accusation can very quickly be forwarded to someone with DefaultTrust rating ability. Have a look at my untrusted feedback, I have 100's of negatives from the BFL 'trust competition' and about 20 more from a permabanned guy onto his 12th account.

[funtotry]

Untrusted feedback should DEFINITELY be shown by default, however not in the trust rating you see next to your profile picture on the posts you make.
Untrusted feedback should be taken a little less seriously, however having it hidden by default just makes it potentially less chance of seeing they are a scammer. Untrusted people (like me) may leave a trust rating, with solid proof that they are a scammer, but people who do not have "show untrusted feedback" on, will not see it and continue deal with that user and might get scammed.

Most untrusted feedback is garbage, and any serious scam accusation can very quickly be forwarded to someone with DefaultTrust rating ability. Have a look at my untrusted feedback, I have 100's of negatives from the BFL 'trust competition' and about 20 more from a permabanned guy onto his 12th account.

Yes, I never trust the untrusted trust by default, I check the reference and see who its by. The main point we are trying to raise here, is that someone might be scammed because there was a warning that they are scammer, but it was in the untrusted feedback, so they couldn't see it. And it was too little time for the news of them being scammed to propagate to a default trust user.
None of this affects me at all, but I guess it would make scams a tiny bit harder to pull off.

[XinXan]

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.

[Lauda]

Most untrusted feedback is garbage, and any serious scam accusation can very quickly be forwarded to someone with DefaultTrust rating ability. Have a look at my untrusted feedback, I have 100's of negatives from the BFL 'trust competition' and about 20 more from a permabanned guy onto his 12th account.

Yes, I never trust the untrusted trust by default, I check the reference and see who its by. The main point we are trying to raise here, is that someone might be scammed because there was a warning that they are scammer, but it was in the untrusted feedback, so they couldn't see it. And it was too little time for the news of them being scammed to propagate to a default trust user.
None of this affects me at all, but I guess it would make scams a tiny bit harder to pull off.

Actually quite the opposite would happen and more scams would occur. Dogie is right in this case. Legit users usually only have one or two accounts while scammers tend to have tens.
Let's say that person X gave the potential scammer a negative rating; the potential scammer uses his other accounts to overwrite it by leaving 10 positive ratings. Since all feedback is considered as trusted, the potential scammer would look like a trusted person.
Doing this we would effectively enable all sorts of manipulation related to the trust. Trusted members would go into the red zone pretty quickly for various reasons.

[dogie]

Most untrusted feedback is garbage, and any serious scam accusation can very quickly be forwarded to someone with DefaultTrust rating ability. Have a look at my untrusted feedback, I have 100's of negatives from the BFL 'trust competition' and about 20 more from a permabanned guy onto his 12th account.

Yes, I never trust the untrusted trust by default, I check the reference and see who its by. The main point we are trying to raise here, is that someone might be scammed because there was a warning that they are scammer, but it was in the untrusted feedback, so they couldn't see it. And it was too little time for the news of them being scammed to propagate to a default trust user.
None of this affects me at all, but I guess it would make scams a tiny bit harder to pull off.

Actually quite the opposite would happen and more scams would occur. Dogie is right in this case. Legit users usually only have one or two accounts while scammers tend to have tens.
Let's say that person X gave the potential scammer a negative rating; the potential scammer uses his other accounts to overwrite it by leaving 10 positive ratings. Since all feedback is considered as trusted, the potential scammer would look like a trusted person.
Doing this we would effectively enable all sorts of manipulation related to the trust. Trusted members would go into the red zone pretty quickly for various reasons.

It would only be a matter of time before trust ransoming became a thing. "Give me btc or my network of accounts will spam you."

[shorena]

Most untrusted feedback is garbage, and any serious scam accusation can very quickly be forwarded to someone with DefaultTrust rating ability. Have a look at my untrusted feedback, I have 100's of negatives from the BFL 'trust competition' and about 20 more from a permabanned guy onto his 12th account.

Yes, I never trust the untrusted trust by default, I check the reference and see who its by. The main point we are trying to raise here, is that someone might be scammed because there was a warning that they are scammer, but it was in the untrusted feedback, so they couldn't see it. And it was too little time for the news of them being scammed to propagate to a default trust user.
None of this affects me at all, but I guess it would make scams a tiny bit harder to pull off.

Actually quite the opposite would happen and more scams would occur. Dogie is right in this case. Legit users usually only have one or two accounts while scammers tend to have tens.
Let's say that person X gave the potential scammer a negative rating; the potential scammer uses his other accounts to overwrite it by leaving 10 positive ratings. Since all feedback is considered as trusted, the potential scammer would look like a trusted person.
Doing this we would effectively enable all sorts of manipulation related to the trust. Trusted members would go into the red zone pretty quickly for various reasons.

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.

[Blazed]

I think it could go either way on the non trusted feedback. I personally have it enabled by default because only a handful of people are actually trusted here. For every legit non trusted feedback there are 2 spam ones by an angry user. Maybe have a system where non trusted is shown depending on that users overall rating?

Trust by default network users  - "Trusted Feedback" (top group) - shows by default
Users with some positive non trusted feedback -  "Feedback" (middle group) - shows by default *from members group and up*
Users marked red or from newbie/jr memeber status -  "Untrusted Feedback" (bottom group) - remains hidden by default

Not sure if it would help any or not though...

[notlist3d]

Untrusted feedback should DEFINITELY be shown by default, however not in the trust rating you see next to your profile picture on the posts you make.
Untrusted feedback should be taken a little less seriously, however having it hidden by default just makes it potentially less chance of seeing they are a scammer. Untrusted people (like me) may leave a trust rating, with solid proof that they are a scammer, but people who do not have "show untrusted feedback" on, will not see it and continue deal with that user and might get scammed.

Most untrusted feedback is garbage, and any serious scam accusation can very quickly be forwarded to someone with DefaultTrust rating ability. Have a look at my untrusted feedback, I have 100's of negatives from the BFL 'trust competition' and about 20 more from a permabanned guy onto his 12th account.

I agree with not showing untrusted by default.  I say leave feedback as it is.

If you show untrusted there will be people who make accounts to ruin others feedback.  It gives trolls a new way to spam someone.

Overall I would actually still gain if we did show untrusted.   My score would be even better.  But there are just some that are trash I have one from user "Evan".  He decided to name call in my trust.   I asked him what I did... no response.   That is the type of garbage that could make trust bad with untrusted.