Marketplace trust

[Matthew N. Wright]

Or is it that when I leave a negative feedback for him, no one will see it unless they have me added in their trust list?

That one!

The trust system is about the opinions you trust, meaning you trust their feedback.

So everyone potentially sees something completely different? So as Chaang Noi was saying, what are the chances of someone in *my* circle of trust being affected by a scam before I attempt to read said scammer's profile and find that there is no feedback (because I didn't trust someone else who already left bad feedback)?

I'm trying very hard to be hopeful for this, but every response makes me lose more faith in it being useful at all. It sounds more like "Market politics" than "market trust".

I don't see it being very useful for the scam side, more to confirm that someone may or may not be trustworthy.  It's just a good way to centrally record transactions and better than feedback threads.

How is it a good way to centralize feedback when no one can see the feedback unless they trust the person who left it first?

[tysat]

How is it a good way to centralize feedback when no one can see the feedback unless they trust the person who left it first?

I thought anyone could look at feedback.  When I click on a trust profile I see:

Trusted feedback
Untrusted feedback
Sent feedback

I would imagine feedback left for the person (that's not trusted by me) would show up under Untrusted feedback.  When I look at John Ks trust page I see a few things under untrusted feedback, because those people aren't in my trust network.

[Matthew N. Wright]

How is it a good way to centralize feedback when no one can see the feedback unless they trust the person who left it first?

I thought anyone could look at feedback.  When I click on a trust profile I see:

Trusted feedback
Untrusted feedback
Sent feedback

I would imagine feedback left for the person (that's not trusted by me) would show up under Untrusted feedback.  When I look at John Ks trust page I see a few things under untrusted feedback, because those people aren't in my trust network.

So then where do the numbers come from? Trusted feedback only? So you could have 1000 members giving you "untrusted" feedback for your scam, but 2 members who you trust, oblivious or unaffected by the scam, and this would give you +2 / -0 on your status? Am I understanding this correctly?

[tysat]

So then where do the numbers come from? Trusted feedback only? So you could have 1000 members giving you "untrusted" feedback for your scam, but 2 members who you trust, oblivious or unaffected by the scam, and this would give you +2 / -0 on your status? Am I understanding this correctly?

I'm not sure of this part.  Based off of what TradeFortress said a few posts ago, I believe the numbers are based off of people you trust.  I'd like to hear from theymos confirming if this is true or not, as I'm not sure.  It would make sense if the numbers only came from feedback of people in your trust network, otherwise what's the point?  The system would be too easy to game by spamming feedback if the trust network weren't involved in the number system.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Yes, but it's not just the people you trust, but also the people they trust too (unless you set the depth to 0). So if they trust someone who is one of the 1000 members (pretty likely), then you'll still see it.

[Matthew N. Wright]

So then where do the numbers come from? Trusted feedback only? So you could have 1000 members giving you "untrusted" feedback for your scam, but 2 members who you trust, oblivious or unaffected by the scam, and this would give you +2 / -0 on your status? Am I understanding this correctly?

I'm not sure of this part.  Based off of what TradeFortress said a few posts ago, I believe the numbers are based off of people you trust.  I'd like to hear from theymos confirming if this is true or not, as I'm not sure.  It would make sense if the numbers only came from feedback of people in your trust network, otherwise what's the point?  The system would be too easy to game by spamming feedback if the trust network weren't involved in the number system.

Honestly it could go either way. It can be gamed based on people's lack of knowledge of someone's trustworthiness too as far as I can tell. It honestly makes more sense to default everyone to trusting their opinion, and let people remove people's opinions based on ignoring them on the forum or just deleting them from the list.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

But then trust becomes meaningless, as people will start making sockpuppets and then rate them heavily, and noobs will be fooled into some scammer with +2434.

[tysat]

I think we really just need to give it some time to see how it plays out.  Per what theymos has said part of it is based off of age of feedback, so we won't really know for a few months.  Plus if it is bad it can always be changed/removed.

[Matthew N. Wright]

It doesn't become meaningless, it just turns from a blank slate to trusting the groupthink basically. At that point, it's just about pruning inappropriate feedback. You could trust *others* to prune it for you I guess and that would make much more sense for a "trust list" if you ask me. It'd basically be saying "I trust Theymos to prune this list of bullshit claims by scammer sockpuppets".

To me, being able to hear every single claim of scam or whatnot is better than potentially missing out on it just because I didn't know whose name to enter into my trust list to get access to that warning.

[tysat]

It doesn't become meaningless, it just turns from a blank slate to trusting the groupthink basically. At that point, it's just about pruning inappropriate feedback. You could trust *others* to prune it for you I guess and that would make much more sense for a "trust list" if you ask me. It'd basically be saying "I trust Theymos to prune this list of bullshit claims by scammer sockpuppets".

To me, being able to hear every single claim of scam or whatnot is better than potentially missing out on it just because I didn't know whose name to enter into my trust list to get access to that warning.

I think there will end up being some people who maintain good trust lists, and all you'll have to do is trust them to have a solid trust network.  As of right now I like the blank slate idea, it's better to start off not trusting anyone than trusting everyone, that's usually how it works around here (you earn the trust).

[nimda]

Theymos, in the interest of simplicity, can you give the formulas for each of the 4 numbers?

[tysat]

Theymos, in the interest of simplicity, can you give the formulas for each of the 4 numbers?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.msg2257167#msg2257167

Explains some of it, but not the exact formulas for all of the numbers.

[FCTaiChi]

Been watching this for a few days, it looks as though it's more of a way to track groups than individuals.  It really looks as if that person, all on their own, gained merit from the community, whereas it's just a circle...  umm, circular reciprocation.  Not even that though, it's the leader of the organization telling everyone to hit each others trust button.

However I did notice that though some groups that all gave each other feedback were at 200+ (untrusted) a few days ago have gone way down, so maybe that's the algorithm at work fixing this.  Then again they could just hit the button every few days... hopefully people won't make apps to make it easier, at least this way they'll get tired of trusting their whole group every few days.

[nimda]

Been watching this for a few days, it looks as though it's more of a way to track groups than individuals.  It really looks as if that person, all on their own, gained merit from the community, whereas it's just a circle...  umm, circular reciprocation.  Not even that though, it's the leader of the organization telling everyone to hit each others trust button.

"By order of our esteemed leader?"

However I did notice that though some groups that all gave each other feedback were at 200+ (untrusted) a few days ago have gone way down, so maybe that's the algorithm at work fixing this.  Then again they could just hit the button every few days... hopefully people won't make apps to make it easier, at least this way they'll get tired of trusting their whole group every few days.

You shouldn't be trusting anyone who trusts someone who trusts people who game the system...

[BadBear]

It doesn't become meaningless, it just turns from a blank slate to trusting the groupthink basically. At that point, it's just about pruning inappropriate feedback. You could trust *others* to prune it for you I guess and that would make much more sense for a "trust list" if you ask me. It'd basically be saying "I trust Theymos to prune this list of bullshit claims by scammer sockpuppets".

To me, being able to hear every single claim of scam or whatnot is better than potentially missing out on it just because I didn't know whose name to enter into my trust list to get access to that warning.

Nothing has been removed, you won't miss out on anything, unless you were hoping for a magic button that would tell you who's a scammer and who isn't. Scam accusations still exists for people to air their grievances. People will still post what a scam x is in any thread that doesn't pass the smell test, even if it does. Now people can also leave feedback for others. You can/will see this feedback regardless of trust (it's even sorted and categorized for you). Additionally, if you trust the person's opinion who left that feedback, you can add them to your trust list and the trust levels will be calculated for you based on that.

[FCTaiChi]

"By order of our esteemed leader?"

lol, yes.  Very odd.  Honest at least.

[freedomno1]

As long as there's no attempt at trust pumping a user should work fine

[Chuck]

I think the 'scammed' checkbox needs to be renamed to 'negative feedback' or something similar. I just looked at a few feedback profiles, and see some people are leaving negative feedback for others, but not checking the scam box... which as I understand it, is the same as positive feedback(?)

I wasn't clear on this either, at first. Someone left me false negative feedback, so I wrote feedback for him, but since he didn't scam me, I didn't check the box, and I think it ended up helping him! (I just deleted it and re-did it with the scam checkbox, and now it correctly shows up as red)

Just a thought...

[tcp_rst]

I'm excited to see this system and think it's a great start.  Thought the Default Trust list can be removed from one's own profile I do not think it should be included automatically.  I think people who want to participate in this system should start with zero trusted members in their list and explicitly opt-in by manually defining those they trust.  That would also force them to go and review the depth-of-trust setting.

[sublime5447]

This is exactly what the forum needed thank you theymos finally the forum gets a feedback score!!!
Hopefully you can only rate members you agree to trade with? if not i will donate to get the feature added.