DT1 users may be artificially increasing their own trust (Updated March 26th)

[Annon001]

The 15-20% that you are calling normal seems to be about the standard for those not as heavily involved in the marketplace sections, so what does that mean about people who are getting tons of feedback for trades they are doing?

Maybe. But DT1 members should actively work to improve the forum. They should add users who leave rightful trust, not just the ones they've traded with
Their special powers should come with special behavior. I think it's absolutely OK for regular users to add to their trust only (or mainly) users they've traded with, but not so for DT1 users

As you said in your OP, there is also some consideration to the nature of how a relationship starts. I have a couple of people on my trust list that I would never have known had I not traded with them, so to a certain extent its inevitable. The real metric for who you should trust to add to your trust list, are people that you believe will leave accurate feedback for others and act fairly.

Yes. Definitely the real reason to add someone must be you believe they will leave accurate feedback, not because they left trust to you or because they can be trusted with money

Phillipma is indeed a large outlier, but this thread serves as the smoke to warrant further investigation, not necessarily something to draw conclusions from

Fair point. I'll try to investigate more, mainly for the top 3: philipma1957 (I see he's doing so himself, thanks!), OgNasty and Tomatocage
I want to see mainly what users where added to DT2 only because of each one of them and if they're really actively leaving trust to others and thus helping the forum
As others have suggested I also want to know if they were added after or before leaving positive trust to those DT1 members but I don't see how. Let me know if someone can help on this

A moderator will likely see reports from users in their trust list, which may play a role in deciding if they can be trusted or not. There also may be non-public information in the staff section about certain users.

Non-public sections are despicable for most non-moderators users. It won't change the research significantly

With the exception of philipma1957, I don't think the change in trust score reasonably changes the community perception of how trusted these people are

This trick does change the trust of those involved. philipma1957 seems much more trusted as you mention (but again, he's already working on that), OgNasty falsely appears as the user with the most trust (http://dev.martinlawrence.ca/bpip/), Tomatocage increased their trust but less significantly

I would be more concerned about DT1 members adding people to their trust list, and the result is certain 3rd parties' trust scores are inflated substantially. This could be an indication that a DT1 member is using their trust list to increase the trust score of either their sockpuppet, or a potential accomplice in a later scam

I would be very interested if this is happening. Post your arguments (i.e. facts or data)

OP, you might be on to something but this needs work.

Do we know the date of when someone gets added to a trust list? I guess those who download trust dumps regularly could figure this out. Maybe that needs to be accounted for.

Yes it needs work. I'll work more on this and I want help. I agree knowing those dates would help but I can't get them

Making philipma1957 look like an example of some sort of abuse is quite ridiculous I think

The fact he's already working to solve this issue makes me think so too

people shouldn't really be added to DT just for doing one or two trades with them. People who have done this in the past have been removed from DT and rightly so. I think the feedbacks that person has left for others should carry just as much weight as the deals they have done with that person. If a person has only really left a few feedbacks then they're largely useless in the grand scheme of the network.

Exactly. The feedback that person has left for others should carry more weight. I will research more to see if users added by these 3 DT1 members are useful "in the grand scheme of the network"

As far as I am concerned I have pruned that list over and over and over and over again.
and I will prune it again. Today  right now

Wonderful! Great work. Thanks. I'll check those users later and post here. I hope you can appreciate my feedback

As for the newbie that started the thread  why don't  you come out from the shadows and let us know  whom  or who you are?

Why? You should check my arguments much more than who I am

Unacceptable ------------- ?    I have not done anything with him  since 2013 off my list

I don't think "I have not done anything with him  since 2013" is a good argument here. He should stay if he's left useful trust to others, not if he's done anything with you
I see he hasn't left any feedback since almost a year ago and has left only one negative trust (and without reference) in total so I agree he should be removed but for those reasons

But people do put a lot of weight on it. Feedback = trustability to a lot of people (though it obviously shouldn't)

Yes. They shouldn't but they do. that's the reason why DT2 members must leave positive trust considering the fact their feedback is trusted by default (i.e. leave positive trust only to trusted users)
and DT1 members should take this into account to consider adding someone to DT2

So I altered list and I am now at 536 vs 670
Not sure how op wrote numbers up.
But  I had already left out 70+ feedbacks  
So At this point I will look to alter it more if possible

Thanks for this!

Someone sent a PM to me asking me about the numbers too. It's very simple:
First I see your trust with default settings. i.e. my trust list looks like this:

Code:

DefaultTrust

and I see your trust, currently:
190: -0 / +20 instead of the previous 260: -0 / +27
Then I exclude you (or the DT1 member being checked) so my trust list loos like this:

Code:

DefaultTrust
~philipma1957 

and check your trust again:
45: -0 / +5

The difference is the trust you've got because of the fact you added several users as DT2. You wouldn't have that extra trust if you weren't DT1

[philipma1957]

I would prune the list more as I found at least 5 old accounts that did not belong there.


My issue with op is you hid behind a newbie account.

So If I prune more maybe you are looking to hurt people  that should not be pruned.

Ie you could be OgNasty for all I know  or anyone it is obvious you  have an older account  and used a newbie account.

for now here is the newer list


-ck
CrazyGuy
~Unacceptable
kano
~champbronc2
Cablez
davecoin
~TheButterZone
~iluvpcs
~crashoveride54902
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
~TookDk
~Chris_Sabian
DefaultTrust
~Stratobitz
Blazed
btcxcg
~MoreBloodWine
~pcfli
edonkey
HagssFIN
wlefever
generalt
~nicehash
Mikestang
vg54dett
AriesIV10
VoskCoin
~philippma1957
~Cryptotradenz

[Frij]

for now here is the newer list
-ck
...

You don't necessarily have to exclude users from your list (~) unless you distrust their ratings. In most cases, just deleting them from the list entirely will accomplish the same result.

It's what this place has turned in to, censoring via negatives and exclusions.

It's not particularly fair to blame the forum in it's entirety for the actions of (mostly) one user. Not naming any names of course.

[Lauda]

My issue with op is you hid behind a newbie account.

I'm pretty sure that the reason for which they did that, given the sensitive nature of this subject, is because they are afraid of a negative rating for speaking out. It's what this place has turned in to, censoring via negatives and exclusions.

for now here is the newer list
-ck
...

You don't necessarily have to exclude users from your list (~) unless you distrust their ratings. In most cases, just deleting them from the list entirely will accomplish the same result.

Actually, he shouldn't be adding a ~ prefix.

[Quickseller]

The issue of retaliatory feedback could also be addressed by having a comment section where a person could respond to their own feedback.

Allowing retaliatory feedback in any way results in those in the DT network can engage in shady behavior and scam for amounts less than the value of the value of the person they are trading with’s reputation as upon the receipt of a scam report the person reporting will expect a negative rating themselves. This is especially true considering that many disputes are not black and white.

[Quickseller]

My issue with op is you hid behind a newbie account.

I'm pretty sure that the reason for which they did that, given the sensitive nature of this subject, is because they are afraid of a negative rating for speaking out. It's what this place has turned in to, censoring via negatives and exclusions.

Oh the irony in this statement lol.

[SaltySpitoon]

We have a nice thread going here that is getting results, ideas are being exchanged, and people aren't fighting with each other. Would it be possible to prevent the fighting before it begins? You guys have your own threads going.

*edit*

The issue of retaliatory feedback could also be addressed by having a comment section where a person could respond to their own feedback.

Allowing retaliatory feedback in any way results in those in the DT network can engage in shady behavior and scam for amounts less than the value of the value of the person they are trading with’s reputation as upon the receipt of a scam report the person reporting will expect a negative rating themselves. This is especially true considering that many disputes are not black and white.

Allowing retaliatory feedback or not, what I mean is that I've often seen people who receive feedback, mainly neutral or negative, respond to that feedback on the other person's trust page. Having a place to respond to it on your own profile, so you can dispute the claim, maybe leave a reference link with your side of the story, without having to post it on the other person's profile would be beneficial.

[TMAN]

We have a nice thread going here that is getting results, ideas are being exchanged, and people aren't fighting with each other. Would it be possible to prevent the fighting before it begins? You guys have your own threads going.

Fair point. ill back away can QS please let the grown ups continue to be productive here?

[philipma1957]

I put in
~
as a tracking method as it does the job on lowering the ratings the same as a delete

If there is an issue I will delete instead.



I know the op did not want to get tagged but since I have no idea now of whom he or she was I did not fully prune my list as I see that there are 3 to 4 more I could remove.

I have always stated in these threads  when they pop up a few things:

1) I Never asked for default trust 1 rating
2) pm me with issues on my list.

here is something new
philiparcario@yahoo.com  is my email  send me emails if you want privacy  since pm's are not private



So  I will just delete them  rather then ~

-ck
CrazyGuy
kano
Cablez
davecoin
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN
wlefever
generalt
Mikestang
vg54dett
AriesIV10
VoskCoin



~pcfli
~MoreBloodWine
~Stratobitz
~TookDk
~Chris_Sabian
~iluvpcs
~crashoveride54902
~champbronc2
~Unacceptable
~TheButterZone
~nicehash
~philippma1957
~Cryptotradenz

[Annon001]

My issue with op is you hid behind a newbie account.
So If I prune more maybe you are looking to hurt people  that should not be pruned.
Ie you could be OgNasty for all I know  or anyone it is obvious you  have an older account  and used a newbie account.

Again. You should check at my arguments and decide for yourself. It shouldn't matter who I am

for now here is the newer list

Here are some comments about some of the users listed by you:

CrazyGuy: hasn't left any trust in a long time
kano: no conflict of interests as he hasn't left trust to you, but has left only one single trust and it was 5 years ago. I don't see why you consider he should be on DT2
Cablez: hasn't left any trust in a long time
davecoin: no negative trust left at all (no scammers tagged)
buysolar: only 3 positive trust left, 2 of them to you. The last left feedback was 3 years ago
not.you: not active during the last year but has tagged some scammers
btcxcg: Only 5 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent. Last feedback was 4 years ago
generalt: No negative trust sent. Last (positive) feedback sent was one year ago
Mikestang: Last feedback was sent 2 years ago, but he did tag 1 scammer at least
vg54dett: Only 6 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent at all
AriesIV10: Positive trust only to 2 users, including yourself, only one negative sent

I'd appreciate if you can check again kano, buysolar, btcxcg, vg54dett and AriesIV10
(other users, post your comments about these members. I don't want philipma1957 or others to believe I have personal issues against any of them)
And you may consider adding users who leave much more feedback after you verify they're not abusing as I didn't find any really active user in your list


I'll check OgNasty's and Tomatocage's lists later

[OgNasty]

So I altered list

Thank you for making your thought process public.  I looked over some of your comments and added a few to my list also as they seemed to use good judgement in their dealings thus far.  I guess my abuse rating is probably higher now that I've expanded my network (as all DT members should be doing so things aren't as centralized).

[Quickseller]

The issue of retaliatory feedback could also be addressed by having a comment section where a person could respond to their own feedback.

Allowing retaliatory feedback in any way results in those in the DT network can engage in shady behavior and scam for amounts less than the value of the value of the person they are trading with’s reputation as upon the receipt of a scam report the person reporting will expect a negative rating themselves. This is especially true considering that many disputes are not black and white.

Allowing retaliatory feedback or not, what I mean is that I've often seen people who receive feedback, mainly neutral or negative, respond to that feedback on the other person's trust page. Having a place to respond to it on your own profile, so you can dispute the claim, maybe leave a reference link with your side of the story, without having to post it on the other person's profile would be beneficial.

Yes absolutely, allowing someone to respond to allegations is the most basic ethical considerations that should be made when something is published that affects their reputation.

Until that happens, it would be more appropriate to leave a neutral rating rather than a negative. Also, many retaliatory ratings do not in any way address claim supposedly in dispute, they are more accurately described as them saying “you said something bad about me, so I ruin your reputation”. To be honest, giving retaliatory feedback really is evidence the person is trying to cover something up, and is very clearly evidence they are willing to cover up bad behavior in the future.

[Annon001]

So I altered list

Thank you for making your thought process public.  I looked over some of your comments and added a few to my list also as they seemed to use good judgement in their dealings thus far.  I guess my abuse rating is probably higher now that I've expanded my network (as all DT members should be doing so things aren't as centralized).

Actually your trust went down to 328: -0 / +34
Probably because of someone removed by philipma1957
Your abuse rating seems to be still the same

Do add several users, just make sure you add them because of the (positive and negative) trust they leave to others and the good they do to the forum,
not only because they left positive trust to you (as 83.3% of your list when I started this thread), and avoid the conflict of interests

[OgNasty]

Do add several users, just make sure you add them because of the (positive and negative) trust they leave to others and the good they do to the forum,
not only because they left positive trust to you, and avoid the conflict of interests

Obviously I don't do that, or my DT rating would be in the thousands.  I can give more examples of me NOT doing that than nearly anyone, because I have received far more positive trust ratings from different members than most.

[Blue Tyrant]

But people do put a lot of weight on it. Feedback = trustability to a lot of people (though it obviously shouldn't). I've seen people offering their services here and calling themselves a 'trusted user' just because they did a few deals with the right people. It's like a badge of honour to a lot of people and I suppose it gives them the edge over someone who has zero feedback so that's why it's worth something. Some campaigns have even started offering higher payments if you've got it which is ludicrous and just encourages more abuse. 

This the problem with any form of trust system, any "visible" signs are taken at face value by people so your average joe would see a green trust and not check why the green trust was left and would blindly trust them irrespective of whether they are really worth the trust given. Things I  personally check and recommend others to do is when you want to check someone's trust first open their trust page and check the following:

• Check who sent the trust, if a very responsible user leaves a rating then I'd weigh rating with much greater importance than a rating by a random user  (the DT system reduces the issue but I'd still recommend adding reasonable people who leave ratings accurately to your trust list since a lot people arent in DT due to politics, not being well known, etc)
• Check the details of the trust - In bold because this one is important. Being cooperative with an escrow where the risked BTC is 0 absolutely worthless in my eyes. I've seen some DT Escrows leave neutral feedbacks which is better IMO since it gives the details while not tampering with the trust system. There are DTs who seem to leave positive feedback for using them as an escrow but I feel that's abusive in a way similar to how people accused The Butter Zone for his email forwarding related trusts. People are more likely to pick you for the cheap and quick trust from using you as an escrow (again not taking names but just something I noticed)
• References, see this always if it's present. A lot of the retaliatory feedback is for what I feel are just dumb misunderstandings between some users or ego clashes or whatever and all resulting feedbacks can be safely disregarded

~snip~

It's pretty refreshing for a DT1 to quickly respond with appropriate action since I've seen most DT1s seem to be quiet in the shadows and just lurking and rarely posting unless forced to.

I feel that is their problem more than anyone else's. Feedback should be taken exactly for what it is, not some algorithm created green numbers. If someone has 100 positive feedback for 0.001 BTC trades, that wouldn't mean I'd trust them with 1 BTC even if their score is higher than someone I would trust with 1 BTC. If someone does a trade, I believe they deserve accurate feedback for it. I really don't like the green/red numbers. They are a cop out for people who don't feel they need to read a person's feedback and judge its validity for themselves. I've added a few people to my trust list in the past that asked me to remove them because they didn't want to have to change any of their feedback habits because of cases like this, and I really think its a shame. I added them specifically for their feedback habits, and those are exactly the type of people that I think needed to be on DT.

The entire problem as I mentioned above is the average user (who are the ones the trust system is supposed to protect) never sees anything beyond the trust number. The only ones I ever see who do check the ratings thoroughly are the ones who are smart enough to not need really need the trust system.

For example you're a veteran user, pretty sure you have a fair idea of the list of people you can place a decent amount of trust in without seeing the ratings, but the average user? They just see a green + beside the name and think that the user is probably a good guy and assume the opposite for anyone with red trust.

As an example of the strong colour based mentality, anyone remember Alia and her search for dark green trust members?

[Annon001]

Do add several users, just make sure you add them because of the (positive and negative) trust they leave to others and the good they do to the forum,
not only because they left positive trust to you, and avoid the conflict of interests

Obviously I don't do that, or my DT rating would be in the thousands.  I can give more examples of me NOT doing that than nearly anyone, because I have received far more positive trust ratings from different members than most.

Obviously you do that. You've added 14 new users to DT2 (i.e. not added by other DT1 users, they're DT2 only because of you). 10 of them left positive trust to you so it's obvious that's the main factor for you to add someone to DT2. That's 71.4% of them, actually some progress versus the 83% before I started this thread but still 94 points (100 soon)

Here are all 14 users added to DT2 by you along with some comments:
allinvain: Left positive trust to you.
molecular: Left trust only to 4 users, last one 3 years ago, no scammers tagged
naypalm: Left positive trust to you.
mdude77: Left positive trust to you.
Bees Brothers: Left positive trust to you. The last trust left was more than 2 years ago
bigtimespaghetti: Left positive trust to you.
nonnakip: Left positive trust to you. Actually he's left only one trust and it was to you. The only change adding him produced was adding 10 more points to you, nothing else at all
MarkAz: No scammers tagged at all.
FiniteByDesign: No scammers tagged at all.
ManeBjorn: Left positive trust to you.
bithalo: Left positive trust to you.
mindtrip: Left positive trust to you.
Rmcdermott927
Finksy: Left positive trust to you. Last trust sent one year ago, but has left a few

I didn't find any really active users in your list at all

because I have received far more positive trust ratings from different members than most.

I know you're the user with the most positive trust (http://dev.martinlawrence.ca/bpip/). You trust manipulation was enough for this, no need to go to the thousands and make it even more obvious. Of course you wouldn't be #1 if you weren't DT1
However the fact you've made a lot of successful deals and thus received positive trust doesn't have anything to do with how well you decide which users to add to DT2. That's obvious, I'm sure you really know this

Please argue (with arguments) instead of just bragging. Have an open mind to realize and correct your faults instead of just blindly denying them

[OgNasty]

Here are all 14 users added to DT2 by you along with some comments:
allinvain: Left positive trust to you.
molecular: Left trust only to 4 users, last one 3 years ago, no scammers tagged
naypalm: Left positive trust to you.
mdude77: Left positive trust to you.
Bees Brothers: Left positive trust to you. The last trust left was more than 2 years ago
bigtimespaghetti: Left positive trust to you.
nonnakip: Left positive trust to you. Actually he's left only one trust and it was to you. The only change adding him produced was adding 10 more points to you, nothing else at all
MarkAz: No scammers tagged at all.
FiniteByDesign: No scammers tagged at all.
ManeBjorn: Left positive trust to you.
bithalo: Left positive trust to you.
mindtrip: Left positive trust to you.
Rmcdermott927
Finksy: Left positive trust to you. Last trust sent one year ago, but has left a few

Please argue (with arguments) instead of just bragging. Have an open mind to realize and correct your faults instead of just blindly denying them

You seem to have singled these users out as having showed some sort of behavior that would put in question their ability to leave ratings that I would find beneficial to have added to my trust network.  Whether or not they have left me trust or tagged scammers aren't valid reasons for them to be in/excluded, as much as you want to make it about that, so please stick to valid arguments as to whether or not they deserve to be DT2 members.

Please give examples of ratings left by the listed users that you feel warrant them not being included in the trust network as you seem to be implying.

I removed nonnakip from my trust settings.  I agree that looks suspicious, even if I feel that nonnakip's opinions are far more valued by me than those of other users.

[Annon001]

You seem to have singled these users out as having showed some sort of behavior that would put in question their ability to leave ratings that I would find beneficial to have added to my trust network.  Whether or not they have left me trust isn't a valid reason for them to be included, as much as you want to make it about that, so please stick to valid arguments as to whether or not they deserve to be DT2 members.

Please give examples of ratings left by the listed users that you feel warrant them not being included in the trust network as you seem to be implying.

I'm including all users added to DT2 by you, every single one of them. I only left out users also added by other DT1 members. They would be DT2 anyway without you doing anything

You didn't comment on any single one of them, no even nonnakip who left positive trust only to you and nobody else. Why did you add him to DT2?

Most of the users you added haven't left too many trust (besides to you) so probably I won't find too many feedback that should be removed. That's not the issue here. Re-read OP and my previous posts to better understand the issue

[OgNasty]

Most of the users you added haven't left too many trust (besides to you) so probably I won't find too many feedback that should be removed. That's not the issue here. Re-read OP and my previous posts to better understand the issue

I think all of the users you listed are outstanding members of the community that deserve to be DT2 members and I am happy to have played a role in decentralizing the default trust network with their inclusion.  If you feel otherwise, please give a relevant example of why you feel that way.  Them having left me trust is NOT a relevant reason for someone to NOT be included in the trust network, but displays your mindset fairly well.

[suchmoon]

CrazyGuy: hasn't left any trust in a long time
kano: no conflict of interests as he hasn't left trust to you, but has left only one single trust and it was 5 years ago. I don't see why you consider he should be on DT2
Cablez: hasn't left any trust in a long time
davecoin: no negative trust left at all (no scammers tagged)
buysolar: only 3 positive trust left, 2 of them to you. The last left feedback was 3 years ago
not.you: not active during the last year but has tagged some scammers
btcxcg: Only 5 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent. Last feedback was 4 years ago
generalt: No negative trust sent. Last (positive) feedback sent was one year ago
Mikestang: Last feedback was sent 2 years ago, but he did tag 1 scammer at least
vg54dett: Only 6 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent at all
AriesIV10: Positive trust only to 2 users, including yourself, only one negative sent

You seem to be implying that the only criteria for being in DT2 is the number of negatives sent. I think that's wrong.

I put in
~
as a tracking method as it does the job on lowering the ratings the same as a delete

If there is an issue I will delete instead.

Your exclusion may cause someone to be effectively removed from DT2, if another DT1 member excludes that person. I don't think that applies to anyone in your list though.