Marketplace trust

[Welsh]

I don't understand the trust system. I have had two successful trades, however. they have given good comments etc. But my feedback which I have received is under 'untrusted feedback' any idea why? Did they input it wrong?

You do not trust them, so they are in untrusted feedback. As you haven't trusted anyone (trusting someone is different from leaving feedback), you are trusting DefaultTrust. DefaultTrust has not trusted those persons. Otherwise, people could make sockpuppets and easily game the system.

Ah, I see. That makes more sense. Thank you for explaining (I'm stupid).

[1714907733]

1714907733

[1714907733]

1714907733

[1714907733]

1714907733

[crumbs]

That's true. I also think something needs to be done for frivolous accusations or those made by scammers. It could be hiding feedback by users with a negative rating by default.

Otherwise, it creates an environment where people are somewhat punished for calling out scammers, viruses, etc.

For example:

saudibull < mad that I called out his scam.
UniversalTrek < mad that I called out his scam.
MoneypakTrader.com < I don't need to say more on this user.
Aosana < mad after I've banned him on CoinChat for being abusive, and dozen counts of ban evasion

I'm not even sure how the trust system works.  

Could the default trust be reset to "nobody"?  
Is there any mechanism to prevent false ratings (both abusive and positive)?  
With [established] user accounts bought & sold, is there any policy in place to prevent large scale abuse?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

> Could the default trust be reset to "nobody"? 

Then the trust system is useless for 99.8% of forum users.

> Is there any mechanism to prevent false ratings (both abusive and positive)? 

So far, I don't think there has been any false ratings removed. However, people have been removed from DefaultTrust for ratings that theymos does not agree with.

The score only takes in account trusted ratings, but still there are a lot of frivolous ratings in the "untrusted field".

> With [established] user accounts bought & sold, is there any policy in place to prevent large scale abuse?

If some established user sells their forum account, then they're not much different from a scammer IMO.

[crumbs]

> Could the default trust be reset to "nobody"?  

Then the trust system is useless for 99.8% of forum users.

> Is there any mechanism to prevent false ratings (both abusive and positive)?  

So far, I don't think there has been any false ratings removed. However, people have been removed from DefaultTrust for ratings that theymos does not agree with.

The score only takes in account trusted ratings, but still there are a lot of frivolous ratings in the "untrusted field".

> With [established] user accounts bought & sold, is there any policy in place to prevent large scale abuse?

If some established user sells their forum account, then they're not much different from a scammer IMO.

I agree, though the official  line on this is that rules against account selling are unenforceable, thus there are no rules against it (in other words, it's legit).

edit: wording

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Yeah, that's a good position because making account sales against the rules is like making scamming against the rules. It achieves precisely nothing.

Btcttalkaccounts is really annoying through.

[crumbs]

Just like how a rule against scamming would not help reduce scammers.

Not arguing the point, simply saying that both exist & should be considered when devising trust system.

edit: There's a policy aimed at reducing scammers:  Scammer tags, booting obvious scammer by mods.  Not effective, but it exists.

[Welsh]

We need to come up with a system to stop scammers posting negative feedback.

For example:

saudibull < mad that I called out his scam.
UniversalTrek < mad that I called out his scam.
MoneypakTrader.com < I don't need to say more on this user.
Aosana < mad after I've banned him on CoinChat for being abusive, and dozen counts of ban evasion

That is ridiculous, I don't think there is a way to stop them. But, people normally are put off by the fact they have left negative feedback. Bitcointalk users will be put off by the fact of letting other users know that threads are a scam or reporting a virus of a thread etc.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

edit: There's a policy aimed at reducing scammers:  Scammer tags, booting obvious scammer by mods.  Not effective, but it exists.

That is not effective at all at reducing the first instance of a scammer. When people realize an account has being sold and the new owner has been maliciously abusing it, then..

[crumbs]

Yeah, that's a good position because making account sales against the rules is like making scamming against the rules. It achieves precisely nothing.

Btcttalkaccounts is really annoying through.

What's even more annoying is how many accounts seem to be created specifically for sale/scamming.  If you go to the newbies forum, you'll see many newbie posters with over 150 posts to their names (and, obviously, less than 4 hours).

[Welsh]

Yeah, that's a good position because making account sales against the rules is like making scamming against the rules. It achieves precisely nothing.

Btcttalkaccounts is really annoying through.

What's even more annoying is how many accounts seem to be created specifically for sale/scamming.  If you go to the newbies forum, you'll see many newbie posters with over 150 posts to their names (and, obviously, less than 4 hours).

Yeah, I was surprised with that today. Whilst browsing on my phone I was speaking to one of the newbies. He had 70 odd posts and only around 2 hours total time....That's just...unreal.

[theymos]

I think I'll hide untrusted feedback by default using Javascript. It'll be like:

Trusted feedback

...

Untrusted feedback

Click here to show Untrusted feedback

If I do it this way, I'll add an option to always show untrusted feedback in your profile settings.

[Welsh]

I think I'll hide untrusted feedback by default using Javascript. It'll be like:

Trusted feedback

...

Untrusted feedback

Click here to show Untrusted feedback

If I do it this way, I'll add an option to always show untrusted feedback in your profile settings.

I think this would be better.

[mjosephs]

They are not global scores.

If your trust list is totally empty, you trust "DefaultTrust", which includes some trustworthy people that I'll select.

This is contradictory.  What is a "global score" if not the trust a person has from "DefaultTrust"?  The fact that there is some opt-out way to hide this global score doesn't change its nature.

Also, remember that pirateat40 had an absolutely spectacular otc rating.  It's a subject of debate whether or not that rating was instrumental to his scam.  In my opinion any trust system that's easy for newbies to use as guidance effectively suppresses low-level scamming at the cost of assisting epic pirate-scale scamming.  It's like credit default swaps for the economy of trust.

[Chuck]

Also, remember that pirateat40 had an absolutely spectacular otc rating.  It's a subject of debate whether or not that rating was instrumental to his scam.  In my opinion any trust system that's easy for newbies to use as guidance effectively suppresses low-level scamming at the cost of assisting epic pirate-scale scamming.  It's like credit default swaps for the economy of trust.

The problem is, newbies don't know what TO trust. It's easy to game the system.

I've noticed that several people have been scammed because the poster has the words "Hero Member" under their name. I've had several people refuse to trade with me because I have "Jr. Member" under my name. The difference? The hero's account is only a few weeks old, and he posted 100's of fluff posts. I've been here since 2010. All the hero needs is to make a few fake accounts, give himself a few fake trade ratings, and he's all set to scam.

A newbie has no idea that this is possible. They assume it's (1) hard to get the words HERO under your name (2) it's hard to make fake accounts (3) Untrusted feedback means something.

Right now I think the titles under posters names + showing untrusted feedback just helps scammers

[Matthew N. Wright]

I have long (2 years now) asked Theymos to make a feedback system related to transactions. This new feedback system is completely bogus as it is spammable and is more of a political tool than anything else. Argument below:

So, when is he getting the scammer tag?

I wish not to be THE one to add it (first) but this is really interesting, and this "Canadian" is just not coming through to make everyone "happy"

I left scammer feedback for him.

Did he scam you? Were you affected by his intended scam? Did you ever even have a transaction with him that went bad? (No I'm not defending his sleezy actions, I'm just questioning allowing non-connected parties to give feedback to others).

This is what I'm not liking about the transaction independent ratings on this forum now. It's too easy to astroturf opinions. You could (as you do for all your advertisements) just pay 20 people to post a negative feedback on someone else and make it appear that they are in fact bad. This forum pretends to manage reputations by giving scammer tags to those who cheat and steal, but it fails to manage against the most fragile part of a reputation-- susceptibility to libel and slander.

I'm not talking about CanadianGuy here whom I know nothing about, but in this cultist community it's very easy for 10 people who are in cahoots to cast doubt on otherwise respectable people to the point that people will hesitate to do business with them. The forum needs to either start managing reputations fiercely, or stop doing it at all. Reputation should not be based on the opinions of those that have nothing to do with them.

Random sockpuppet: I don't like TradeFortress, so I'm going to create 10 accounts and call him a scammer on all of them.
Newbie: That tradefortress has too many scammer accusations, I'm afraid to do business with them.
Moderator: Free market herp derp

Theymos, stop trying to pretend to be managing reputations, but not following through the defensive measures as well.

All feedback should be able to be contested, in-line, and petitioned for removal to mods.

All feedback should be transaction related, and those uninvolved in the transaction should only be able to "comment", not give feedback numbered scores.

I don't really care what anyone's excuses are as to why "this is not necessary", because I know this is the right thing to do and anything else is disingenuous and setting people up for political astroturfing. If you can't see it, it's your problem. Fix it!

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

What if someone posts malware? What if someone spams that scam bitcoin selling site? I'm not personally involved in some definitions, and it is definitely not a transaction.

What about a borrower that defaults on a loan, comes back after a few months and starts to go on a scamming spree. I could post a red warning on post 5+ or whatever of all his posts, or I could leave him a negative scammer rating. I am not the only one leaving non-transaction feedback, many moderators do this, and..

- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.

I'd only rate people negatively if the case was totally clear, especially if I wasn't personally affected.

The case re CanadianGuy is totally clear, he admitted to it, and has not paid out. He is still active on the forums.

Choices:

i) Do nothing
ii) Follow him through all his posts and post a scammer warning
iii) Leave scammer feedback for him.

You could (as you do for all your advertisements) just pay 20 people to post a negative feedback on someone else and make it appear that they are in fact bad. This forum pretends to manage reputations by giving scammer tags to those who cheat and steal, but it fails to manage against the most fragile part of a reputation-- susceptibility to libel and slander.

Then I'd get removed from DefaultTrust. Simple as that.

---

I agree. It can be abused. It requires people not giving false

[Matthew N. Wright]

What if someone posts malware?

Moderator ban, as always.

What if someone spams that scam bitcoin selling site?

Moderator ban, as always.

I'm not personally involved in some definitions, and it is definitely not a transaction.

Those issues are not reputation issues, but moderation issues. So would spam. As I already said before, you should always be able to leave *comments* for another user, but it should never affect your score, whether the person who left it is on your trust list or not.

What about a borrower that defaults on a loan

The loan issuer leaves negative feedback, as this is transaction related. Multiple lenders? Multiple feedbacks.

I could post a red warning on post 5+ or whatever of all his posts, or I could leave him a negative scammer rating.

Or you could just leave a comment on his publicly visible trust page that doesn't actually affect his score. I've been late on a loan before, would I want some misguided nutcase calling me a scammer because they "heard about it" from someone else and made an assumption? There's plenty of that going on as it is in this "community", we don't need it to be further enabled by a poorly thought out, easily abused system.

I'd only rate people negatively if the case was totally clear, especially if I wasn't personally affected.

The case re CanadianGuy is totally clear, he admitted to it, and has not repaid. He is still active on the forums.

This is not even something worth rating, this is worth banning him for. A moderator should leave that warning or feedback. Theymos seems to think it's his job to do that anyway for people, why stop now?

Choices:

i) Not help the community by ignoring the scammer
ii) Follow him through all his posts and post a scammer warning
iii) Leave scammer feedback for him.
iv) Leave a comment on his page if you're unaffiliated, leave a negative rating if you're directly affiliated, always supplying proof and allowing for a rebuttal from the person and petition for removal by mods.

You could (as you do for all your advertisements) just pay 20 people to post a negative feedback on someone else and make it appear that they are in fact bad. This forum pretends to manage reputations by giving scammer tags to those who cheat and steal, but it fails to manage against the most fragile part of a reputation-- susceptibility to libel and slander.

Then I'd get removed from DefaultTrust. Simple as that.

Then why have scammer tags at all? It seems it's as simple as just removing people from a trust list. Wow.

You're wrong TradeFortress, your view is shortsighted because of your situation and position (you are in a position of anonymity, have already proven you don't mind shilling and paying people to post your opinions, etc, so it is safe to say that you would be abusing this system heavily yourself.)

Theymos needs to stop pretending his is managing reputations and stop offering the service at all, or start offering defensive tools as well, such as petitions for removal (even eBay allows this) and in-line rebuttals.

Theymos, you've been given a real world example, I can give endless more. Fix it.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Moderator ban, as always.

Sometimes it takes hours after reporting before a moderator deletes something obvious like a virus or spam.

Why do you think leaving negative feedback for those cases is bad? It's like calling out "That guy is a thief!" when you're waiting for the police to get there.

Also, I only rate involved cases if it's obvious and the person affected is calling for a scammer tag, or already left scammer feedback. I could trust the person who left it so it actually shows up, but most of the time I don't want to do that.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Moderator ban, as always.

Sometimes it takes hours after reporting before a moderator deletes something obvious like a virus or spam.

Why do you think leaving negative feedback for those cases is bad? It's like calling out "That guy is a thief!" when you're waiting for the police to get there.

http://news.sky.com/story/1080260/boston-bombings-wrong-suspect-reveals-fears

Are you really this naive? Reddit allows people to "flag" a post, where so many flags auto-hides it until a moderator can see it. That is a much better solution than "HE IS A SCAMMER! HE IS A SCAMMER!" *2 minutes later* "OOps sorry bro, thought you were a scammer"

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

http://news.sky.com/story/1080260/boston-bombings-wrong-suspect-reveals-fears

Are you really this naive?

Irrelevant, we already know who the person/forum account is.