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

[OgNasty]

Do DT members get some sort of guidelines sent to them by theymos when they are added to DT1?

No.

nonnakip should have just gotten positive trust, and maybe multiple, based on various work or trades with Og/Nasty*. I feel like Og's response to nonnakip being added to DT2 may just be "Well, I trust him!".. which he may, but does the inclusion of nonnakip help the DT network, no. Does it hurt it? Short-term probably no, long-term may be debatable. Unless there are specific guidelines sent to DT1 members like Og* specifically stating all of this, it seems tough to deem this "DT abuse". Maybe I've missed it but I'm not sure I've ever really seen any public guidelines involving DT1 members and why they should or should not be adding people to DT2.

I would trust nonnakip to hold every cent I have and value his judgement more than any other human being alive.  I've removed him because as stated, he doesn't leave trust for anyone so there is no current value there, but make no mistake that he would be on my trust list if he left any ratings for anyone other than myself.

[suchmoon]

I'll take Og's word for it
-snip-
not sure why you're claiming there was no explanation

You really should stop taking someone's word for it without a proper explanation. He hasn't explained why he added nonnakip in the first place, or anyone else for that matter
They clearly do not help the community. Maybe they don't hurt it either but the fact none (or almost none) of them helps the community rises the question why they were included then

He removed nonnakip because it was too obvious his addition was wrong but it was always wrong, even the day he added him, so why did he add him?
This wouldn't matter if there were only a few cases but that appears to be the norm. So explanations are still required, or at least openness to feedback and improvement

You said there was no explanation. There was one and it's as good as any when it comes to DT1/DT2 inclusions or exclusions.

I can see why you don't like it but that's another story. Feel free to come up with evidence of wrongdoing. The mere fact of nonnakip being in DT2 does not show that.

Have you contacted Tomato?

I can't PM him, he doesn't receive PMs from newbies. Would you?

No. Ask QS, he's tight with Tomato.

It seems like the real question to be asked for inclusion by DT1 members is "Do I trust this persons feedback and/or judgement of other members on this forum?" If the person has not left feedback for others, there is nothing to go off of. Even if the person added has left good feedback on eBay and gives you good feedback on your product/services directly, it doesn't mean they are going to have useful or accurate feedback on this forum towards other members, and so while they may be trustworthy to you, I'm not sure they are beneficial to the DefaultTrust network which serves an important niche of the community.

I think it's possible to trust someone's judgement even if they haven't left a lot of (or any) feedback ratings yet. The OP's approach is just way too blunt.

[ibminer]

I think it's possible to trust someone's judgement even if they haven't left a lot of (or any) feedback ratings yet. The OP's approach is just way too blunt.

I might trust my doctor to have good judgement on what medication I need but I wouldn't trust his or her judgement to leave feedback to someone on this forum.  

What if the feedback is about Lauda's pill addiction?

Ok, I'll get my coat.

The doctor doesn't even know who Lauda is, nor the knowledge needed to make Lauda send a signed message to verify Lauda == his patient!  

[suchmoon]

I think it's possible to trust someone's judgement even if they haven't left a lot of (or any) feedback ratings yet. The OP's approach is just way too blunt.

I might trust my doctor to have good judgement on what medication I need but I wouldn't trust his or her judgement to leave feedback to someone on this forum. 

What if the feedback is about Lauda's pill addiction?

Ok, I'll get my coat.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think it's possible to trust someone's judgement even if they haven't left a lot of (or any) feedback ratings yet. The OP's approach is just way too blunt.

I might trust my doctor to have good judgement on what medication I need but I wouldn't trust his or her judgement to leave feedback to someone on this forum. 

What if the feedback is about Lauda's pill addiction?

Ok, I'll get my coat.

What about a pharmacist?

Hold the door suchmoon, I'm just coming.

[MagicSmoker]

philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

...

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

FWIW, philipma1957 sells a lot of hardware on the forum - in fact, I recently bought a mobo from him - and I suspect he has lots of repeat customers which might skew his positive trust or make it look suspicious.

[Blazed]

philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

...

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

FWIW, philipma1957 sells a lot of hardware on the forum - in fact, I recently bought a mobo from him - and I suspect he has lots of repeat customers which might skew his positive trust or make it look suspicious.

Nothing about philipma1957 is suspect...he has proven him self a 100x over trust wise. OP was just pointing out is that some of his additions to the DT network did not really help the network. I have traded with phil a bunch of times over the years as have many here and we all know he is legit. I think it is a good thing that people audit the DT1 members and should always continue to monitor who we add. I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why. There is not any rules set forth when we get added and we rarely if ever chat about who is added to DT2 and why etc...

[DarkStar_]

philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

...

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

FWIW, philipma1957 sells a lot of hardware on the forum - in fact, I recently bought a mobo from him - and I suspect he has lots of repeat customers which might skew his positive trust or make it look suspicious.

Nothing about philipma1957 is suspect...he has proven him self a 100x over trust wise. OP was just pointing out is that some of his additions to the DT network did not really help the network. I have traded with phil a bunch of times over the years as have many here and we all know he is legit. I think it is a good thing that people audit the DT1 members and should always continue to monitor who we add. I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why. There is not any rules set forth when we get added and we rarely if ever chat about who is added to DT2 and why etc...

Why not do this publicly? Transparency is good.

[Blazed]

philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

...

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

FWIW, philipma1957 sells a lot of hardware on the forum - in fact, I recently bought a mobo from him - and I suspect he has lots of repeat customers which might skew his positive trust or make it look suspicious.

Nothing about philipma1957 is suspect...he has proven him self a 100x over trust wise. OP was just pointing out is that some of his additions to the DT network did not really help the network. I have traded with phil a bunch of times over the years as have many here and we all know he is legit. I think it is a good thing that people audit the DT1 members and should always continue to monitor who we add. I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why. There is not any rules set forth when we get added and we rarely if ever chat about who is added to DT2 and why etc...

Why not do this publicly? Transparency is good.

The amount of comments would probably make this hard to get done. Maybe if we had a thread that only DT could post in?

[philipma1957]

philipma1957
260: -0 / +27
45: -0 / +5
+215: +22 (440%)

...

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation

FWIW, philipma1957 sells a lot of hardware on the forum - in fact, I recently bought a mobo from him - and I suspect he has lots of repeat customers which might skew his positive trust or make it look suspicious.

Nothing about philipma1957 is suspect...he has proven him self a 100x over trust wise. OP was just pointing out is that some of his additions to the DT network did not really help the network. I have traded with phil a bunch of times over the years as have many here and we all know he is legit. I think it is a good thing that people audit the DT1 members and should always continue to monitor who we add. I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why. There is not any rules set forth when we get added and we rarely if ever chat about who is added to DT2 and why etc...

Why not do this publicly? Transparency is good.

I want to mention a few things I looked at my list and could remove more from it.
I will.  But I have 75 or 76 feedbacks I left out I know I can add more then 10 of them by multiple criteria mentioned here. I don’t because it would help my numbers I would approach 1000 for my score.

Yet those people are good for the forum.

Also I report posts around 250 with about 97% accuracy.

I have no idea if anyone else does this or should I say it that I don’t know stats on this for anyone else.

So I can’t know how much anyone helps this way.
I can not read pms not that I want to but I have no idea of any good any one does via pms.
An example I had no idea this thread was here but someone pm’d me. So that person helped the forum by getting me on the thread.

[botany]

I want to mention a few things I looked at my list and could remove more from it.
I will.  But I have 75 or 76 feedbacks I left out I know I can add more then 10 of them by multiple criteria mentioned here. I don’t because it would help my numbers I would approach 1000 for my score.

Yet those people are good for the forum.

Also I report posts around 250 with about 97% accuracy.

I have no idea if anyone else does this or should I say it that I don’t know stats on this for anyone else.

So I can’t know how much anyone helps this way.
I can not read pms not that I want to but I have no idea of any good any one does via pms.
An example I had no idea this thread was here but someone pm’d me. So that person helped the forum by getting me on the thread.

If you feel that adding those 10 people would be good to the forum, they should obviously added. It would improve decentralization of DT. The fact that they left you positive feedback shouldn't count against them. Being on DT1 trust is a far more important indicator of being trustworthy than having a 'dark green' trust score.

I do not think accuracy in reporting posts counts towards determining whether somebody's feedback can be trusted. It might help if you want to act against spammers, but that is something which I feel moderators should be doing in any case.

[LoyceV]

I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why.

Why not do this publicly? Transparency is good.

The amount of comments would probably make this hard to get done. Maybe if we had a thread that only DT could post in?

DarkStar_ beat me to it. Instead of a closed door meeting, I think it would be interesting to read this in public.
You could create a self-moderated thread in Reputation, with a local rule that only DT1 members can post there. Delete anything else.
A thread filled with DT1 sounds scary enough not to break local rules, and if someone else posts there anyway, just delete it.

Also I report posts around 250 with about 97% accuracy.

I have no idea if anyone else does this or should I say it that I don’t know stats on this for anyone else.

See Report to Moderator stats [Added few questions for Mods].

[philipma1957]

I would love to see a private section added for the DT1 members to chat about who we are adding and why.

Why not do this publicly? Transparency is good.

The amount of comments would probably make this hard to get done. Maybe if we had a thread that only DT could post in?

DarkStar_ beat me to it. Instead of a closed door meeting, I think it would be interesting to read this in public.
You could create a self-moderated thread in Reputation, with a local rule that only DT1 members can post there. Delete anything else.
A thread filled with DT1 sounds scary enough not to break local rules, and if someone else posts there anyway, just delete it.

Also I report posts around 250 with about 97% accuracy.

I have no idea if anyone else does this or should I say it that I don’t know stats on this for anyone else.

See Report to Moderator stats [Added few questions for Mods].

Nice info  but it only goes to about  600 reported posts

and i did 250 or so.  so  people from  250 to 600 reports are left out.


I further changed my trust list
-ck
CrazyGuy
Cablez
davecoin
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN
wlefever
generalt
Mikestang
vg54dett
AriesIV10
VoskCoin


is now
-ck
CrazyGuy
Cablez
davecoin
Stunna
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN

generalt

[TrumpD]

I've never experienced a heated thread with a lot of "high" ranking members before. This is truly "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"... *takes out popcorn and enjoys the show* One thing is clear out of this, there has to be a way, for transparent accountability no matter what level one is on. Just a suggestion *retreats back into seat*

[philipma1957]

I've never experienced a heated thread with a lot of "high" ranking members before. This is truly "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"... *takes out popcorn and enjoys the show* One thing is clear out of this, there has to be a way, for transparent accountability no matter what level one is on. Just a suggestion *retreats back into seat*

There are difficult issues for trust guys to deal with .

I pruned my list and dropped from 700 to 375 score.

I had already left 70 plus people out that if I put on trust my list would jump over 1000 score.

I will later check those 70 out and see if I think they should go on the list.  And each and every one I list brings my score higher.

So I have a built in conflict of interest but it would all be visible and someone like the op would see what i did.


My worry is if I only trust people that did not trust me. Then I could have a huge list. With hundreds of people

Such as the list on post reporting .  I could decide to appoint everyone on that list if they are over 600 with 95% accurate.  It shows no conflicts since I don’t pick anyone I trade with.  But I am not sure that is a good way to pick people

[o_e_l_e_o]

Would it be possible for theymos to implement a system where DT2 members do not boost the ratings of DT1 members, unless the DT2 member has been added by 2 or more DT1s? Would pretty much solve this entire issue immediately.

[Blazed]

Annon001 - You should re-run the numbers and see how much of a difference the changes have made the numbers.

[philipma1957]

I want to mention a few things I looked at my list and could remove more from it.
I will.  But I have 75 or 76 feedbacks I left out I know I can add more then 10 of them by multiple criteria mentioned here. I don’t because it would help my numbers I would approach 1000 for my score.

Yet those people are good for the forum.

Also I report posts around 250 with about 97% accuracy.

I have no idea if anyone else does this or should I say it that I don’t know stats on this for anyone else.

So I can’t know how much anyone helps this way.
I can not read pms not that I want to but I have no idea of any good any one does via pms.
An example I had no idea this thread was here but someone pm’d me. So that person helped the forum by getting me on the thread.

If you feel that adding those 10 people would be good to the forum, they should obviously added. It would improve decentralization of DT. The fact that they left you positive feedback shouldn't count against them. Being on DT1 trust is a far more important indicator of being trustworthy than having a 'dark green' trust score.

I do not think accuracy in reporting posts counts towards determining whether somebody's feedback can be trusted. It might help if you want to act against spammers, but that is something which I feel moderators should be doing in any case.

this is my issue.  I do 20000 usd in business with x he is wonderful  I do 5 deals  over 18 months  no issues.  I know where he lives and   have been to his house.

I am being asked to not put him in for trust  because he  does not fit   the op's standards  of what trust list is for.  Better in the case of generalt he gave me feedbacks I should leave him off.

Well  I take the fact I am on DT1 list seriously  and I removed a lot of names  in the last few days.

I am now going to be looking to see names to put in.  Since I mostly deal with  mining and gear  my name list will always in that direction.

I may be adding kilo17 today  and I think  that will boost my  score. But he has helped a lot of peopel and done a lot for bitcointalk

393 0 41   is what I am before I add him

393: -0 / +41  I stayed at that number


and this is my list now

-ck
CrazyGuy
Cablez
davecoin
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17


if I do only this for my list

DefaultTrust

I drop to this

Trust:   303: -0 / +32  just default
   
Trust:   393: -0 / +41 so my people added  moved me to

here is another point  with a score of

303: -0  / +32    I think it is high enough  to be trusted   

[Jet Cash]

Such as the list on post reporting .  I could decide to appoint everyone on that list if they are over 600 with 95% accurate.  It shows no conflicts since I don’t pick anyone I trade with.  But I am not sure that is a good way to pick people

This illustrates one of the problems that I have with the trust system. I don't understand why reporting posts accurately should indicate that a person can be trusted in a financial transaction.

[philipma1957]

Such as the list on post reporting .  I could decide to appoint everyone on that list if they are over 600 with 95% accurate.  It shows no conflicts since I don’t pick anyone I trade with.  But I am not sure that is a good way to pick people

This illustrates one of the problems that I have with the trust system. I don't understand why reporting posts accurately should indicate that a person can be trusted in a financial transaction.

I hear you.

Frankly  when I now look at the current list I have

-ck
CrazyGuy
Cablez
davecoin
lazlopanaflex
buysolar
not.you
DefaultTrust
Blazed
btcxcg
edonkey
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17

and I add in this  rule for trust I know where you live and have contacted you in person or telephone or emails.

my list shrinks to this

-ck
buysolar
HagssFIN
generalt
kilo17
DefaultTrust

So based on  the op and possible liability for me I should further shrink my list to just that.

I certainly don't want someone saying my  list caused them a monetary loss.

So for now I think I will shrink my list again.

As I think you would be safe dealing with those people and I know they help  the forum.


when I look at my profile  I read this

 Trust:   343: -0 / +36