theymos, why are trust/merit pages not available to guests?

[actmyname]

I don't see any point of limiting pages these to logged-in users. It would help immensely with archiving data: there have been many a time where I've wanted to archive merit history for busting users that are trading/selling/abusing. Same thing with trust pages.

[jackg]

I don't see any point of limiting pages these to logged-in users. It would help immensely with archiving data: there have been many a time where I've wanted to archive merit history for busting users that are trading/selling/abusing. Same thing with trust pages.

Vod is working the BPIP which will have this data archived on it and publicly avaliable (I believe).

I'm not sure as for the merit system, however, I know trust isn't avaliable wiithout registering an account as you can't set your own trust level and users like to do that as DT1 and 2 are prone to have people others may not trust.

[Vod]

I don't see any point of limiting pages these to logged-in users.

How would you display trust to someone that is not logged in?

[TryNinja]

How would you display trust to someone that is not logged in?

IMO, using the default trust settings should be enough.

[pugman]

I do think that they should be available,but new users would find the trust/merit system not very helpful. They would need to know how these systems function. Hell even 50%,no scratch that,85-90% of the users don't know how the trust system works. Guests won't be knowing anything about the DT members, and for all they would be knowing is one random person's word against the other. Registering in this forum doesn't take that long. If people want to trade or need to know anything about bitcointalk,they better register than just staying guest.

[Welsh]

IMO, using the default trust settings should be enough.

Probably would be enough, although the trust system isn't really useful for someone not registered. As trust is a way of indicating whether a user is trustworthy or not, and without being registered on the forum it would be unlikely they would use it.

I don't see any point of limiting pages these to logged-in users. It would help immensely with archiving data: there have been many a time where I've wanted to archive merit history for busting users that are trading/selling/abusing. Same thing with trust pages.

Your case of archiving trust, and merit pages is likely a niche where only few people would be interested in. It being public would not really benefit those who aren't interested in trade. Plus, new users would likely get the wrong impression of several people due to their trust ratings, and may discredit their posts as a result of that hence the reason why certain sections do not show trust ratings.

[actmyname]

How would you display trust to someone that is not logged in?

Fair point. But what of merit, then?

Plus, new users would likely get the wrong impression of several people due to their trust ratings, and may discredit their posts as a result of that hence the reason why certain sections do not show trust ratings.

They already do do that, even without having this public. As I'm sure we're all aware, one of the biggest problems here is having Newbies overestimate the trustworthiness of ranks.

[LoyceV]

I do think that they should be available,but new users would find the trust/merit system not very helpful.

My suggestion would be to display only red trust (on DT2) to guests, as a warning not to fall for scams. There's no need to show green trust to guests. As hugeblack pointed out, I forgot users with both red and green trust. Leaving out the green makes them all red, so both green and red should show.
And while we're on the subject of making trust changes, may I suggest (again) to show red trust on all boards.

They would need to know how these systems function. Hell even 50%,no scratch that,85-90% of the users don't know how the trust system works.

They don't need to understand how it works exactly, all they need to see is a red warning to be extra careful with that user.

[mdayonliner]

How would you display trust to someone that is not logged in?

Fair point. But what of merit, then?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017   <=== This is OP's trust page URL
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017

As long as the u= is there, the data should be accessible for the specific user if the login session is not blocking it viewing in public.

Same applies for merits.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=465017
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=465017

Am I missing something?

[hugeblack]

My suggestion would be to display only red trust (on DT2) to guests, as a warning not to fall for scams.

Some DT members have negative trust. Also, some trustworthy members have one or two negative correlations.[tagging for shitposting, selling accounts,...etc.]

while we're on the subject of making trust changes, may I suggest (again) to show red trust on all boards.

Trust system has been created to reduce scam, showing it outside Marketplace is worthless.

Fair point. But what of merit, then?

Merit system has been created to reduce shitposting, showing it to the guests is worthless.
I suggest adding a warning like

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

It warns of auto-buy links, sign in to show rating and dealing with newbies

[LoyceV]

My suggestion would be to display only red trust (on DT2) to guests, as a warning not to fall for scams.

Some DT members have negative trust. Also, some trustworthy members have one or two negative correlations.[tagging for shitposting, selling accounts,...etc.]

Good point, I forgot about users with both red and green trust. I've edited my post.

while we're on the subject of making trust changes, may I suggest (again) to show red trust on all boards.

Trust system has been created to reduce scam, showing it outside Marketplace is worthless.

I was thinking about the users who post scams (in their signature or in their posts) on other boards.

[jackg]

How would you display trust to someone that is not logged in?

Fair point. But what of merit, then?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017   <=== This is OP's trust page URL
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017

As long as the u= is there, the data should be accessible for the specific user if the login session is not blocking it viewing in public.

Same applies for merits.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=465017
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=465017

Am I missing something?

Yeah... Log out and try those links.
There! You can't access them.

This issue is that users who don't have an account here are unlikely to deal with users here without registering an account (unless the user tells them in the op to email them or something for the deal).

My suggestion would be to display only red trust (on DT2) to guests, as a warning not to fall for scams.

Some DT members have negative trust. Also, some trustworthy members have one or two negative correlations.[tagging for shitposting, selling accounts,...etc.]

Good point, I forgot about users with both red and green trust. I've edited my post.

while we're on the subject of making trust changes, may I suggest (again) to show red trust on all boards.

Trust system has been created to reduce scam, showing it outside Marketplace is worthless.

I was thinking about the users who post scams (in their signature or in their posts) on other boards.

Is it not common sense to research a company before you do anything with them?
I mean if someone falls for a link in a signature that is phishing or just a scam page, they could do that anywhere else on the internet couldn't they? Google lists ponzis that are obvious and don't get removed...

[theymos]

It doesn't make sense to show Trust to guests, since Trust is relative.

For merit, it was just an implementation shortcut. If people care, I can (at some point) make the user summaries public.

[actmyname]

It doesn't make sense to show Trust to guests, since Trust is relative.

Got it. I hadn't noted that consideration when publishing the thread.

For merit, it was just an implementation shortcut. If people care, I can (at some point) make the user summaries public.

I think it's only really necessary during these early few months since merit abuse will become far less frequent down the line. I just wanted to have a way to archive the data for future use in case any concerns were being pressed.Now that theymos has responded (and there has been sufficient discussion), I will lock the thread in roughly 24h (unless anyone has more to say).

[mdayonliner]

How would you display trust to someone that is not logged in?

Fair point. But what of merit, then?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017   <=== This is OP's trust page URL
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017

As long as the u= is there, the data should be accessible for the specific user if the login session is not blocking it viewing in public.

Same applies for merits.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=465017
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=465017

Am I missing something?

Yeah... Log out and try those links.
There! You can't access them.

This is exactly what I am saying too. The data is not loading in public because the session variable is locking it. If they remove the session check for these pages (since we have the user IDs in the URL to pull the data for a given user) then anyone can see those pages without logging in. OP was asking for it if I understand it correct.

Seems like we will be able to see the merit history page in public, if theymos finally decides to implement it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

*Bring back the Old Scammer Tag*

In lieu of doing that, which I know isn't going to happen, just show the trust score based on default trust, which has been suggested.  That's why it's default, right?  It's usually DT members who do the tagging on scammers anyway.  Sometimes even those who get scammed don't even bother. 

I do agree with actmyname that is should be shown, since we've been getting unregistered users coming here, trying to do deals, and getting scammed because they can't see any warning.  Yes, they should be doing more research than they are, but I don't think it'd be a huge deal to show a trust score.

[magneto]

I don't see any point of limiting pages these to logged-in users. It would help immensely with archiving data: there have been many a time where I've wanted to archive merit history for busting users that are trading/selling/abusing. Same thing with trust pages.

I honestly think that having at least some sort of warning system, if not DT2 trust scores shown to visitors makes some sense.

Of course, I also understand that trust is relative, etc. But the main mode of determining who is trustworthy, and who is not, is usually determined by trust scores. People without an account can't see those scores. With the amount of scams in the digital goods section that involves autobuy links that has locked threads that disallow any comments, or people leaving a skype/email as contact. Outsiders can easily fall for these types of scams, despite the sticky put up in that specific section.

I think that the showing of merits to unregistered people makes sense as well, and hopefully that can be implemented.

[pugman]

They don't need to understand how it works exactly, all they need to see is a red warning to be extra careful with that user.

Red warnings are sometimes useless when people like digaran are tagged. Anyhow,theymos has decided not to show trust summaries to guest,which seems to be the best option. If people do get scammed,they have got themselves and their laziness to blame. (Says another lazy person. )

[actmyname]

Locked now. PM me if you want me to unlock the thread to continue the discussion.