Viewing TRUST when not logged in

[sandy-is-fine]

I know this has been discussed before but I think a newbie user who found this forum on a Google search needs to be able to see a users trust BEFORE creating an account.  I'm not trying to convince anyone because the topic has been discussed but am curious to know if this is a system (application) limitation or a changeable decision by the owners/mods of this forum.  Mainly referring to any sections where any item is put up for sale be it physical or digital.

[1714906048]

1714906048

[actmyname]

Changeable decision.

And I want to insist on my suggestion regarding trust: guest should see some trust.

The main reason that I went for [the DT1 modification] rather than forcing custom lists is that I would like to show some trust indicator to guests. But before doing that, I want to see whether these modifications can actually be made to work. If not, then I may go to the force-custom-lists solution, and that's incompatible with guests seeing any trust indicators.

[sandy-is-fine]

Changeable decision.

And I want to insist on my suggestion regarding trust: guest should see some trust.

The main reason that I went for [the DT1 modification] rather than forcing custom lists is that I would like to show some trust indicator to guests. But before doing that, I want to see whether these modifications can actually be made to work. If not, then I may go to the force-custom-lists solution, and that's incompatible with guests seeing any trust indicators.

Thanks, that sounds like something MAY be in the works (or not!).  It's a shame how this lack of viewable rep is causing many unsuspecting fools to throw away their money.  Maybe another possibility might be a "first logon warning" or  better yet a banner in big red 20 point bold type in any of the for sale forums reminding people of the advantages of joining.   

[SaltySpitoon]

I don't know why, but I was under the impression that the decision to disallow guests from viewing feedback had something to do with cases where an employer or something is doing a google search on a potential employee, and ends up here, "Biggest Shitboi on forum, Skemmd my Grandmum for 5,000 BTC", "Guy sucks, l0l" etc feedback.

Again, I don't know if thats correct but something is telling me that was a consideration, though I don't have a source. The obvious hole that sticks out in my mind, is that there are only a handful of people here who used their real names, or have published their real names. I can't shake the suspicion that trust was only meant to be a factor in sections where it might possibly matter, and between members who are at risk of doing some sort of trade, at least partially for that reason. I don't think that conducting business with guest users was a consideration. How would you exchange PMs arranging a trade without an account?

[bones261]

I don't know why, but I was under the impression that the decision to disallow guests from viewing feedback had something to do with cases where an employer or something is doing a google search on a potential employee, and ends up here, "Biggest Shitboi on forum, Skemmd my Grandmum for 5,000 BTC", "Guy sucks, l0l" etc feedback.

Again, I don't know if thats correct but something is telling me that was a consideration, though I don't have a source. The obvious hole that sticks out in my mind, is that there are only a handful of people here who used their real names, or have published their real names. I can't shake the suspicion that trust was only meant to be a factor in sections where it might possibly matter, and between members who are at risk of doing some sort of trade, at least partially for that reason. I don't think that conducting business with guest users was a consideration. How would you exchange PMs arranging a trade without an account?

Yes, but many of these people now invite you to discuss the trade offsite like at telegram or discord.

[sandy-is-fine]

Yes, but many of these people now invite you to discuss the trade offsite like at telegram or discord.

Exactly.  They either use SELLY or one of those other "auto-buy" sites or send you to Telegram or whatever  anyway.  Especially as a Newbie communicating on here it is very slow due to posting limits. They are going to scam you whether or not you see the trust but why be part of the problem, why not try and lessen it?

[mikeywith]

while this may be a good thing to fight scammers, the sad part for the story is that many if not most  outside users do not know what the trust system here mean, i have no solid based statistics but this is human physiology, people seem to be more interested in reading the comments on the post, which is scammer's strongest weapon, self-moderated / locked topic, bunch of fake reviews, that's all what it take to scam poor souls.

[Vod]

I know this has been discussed before but I think a newbie user who found this forum on a Google search needs to be able to see a users trust BEFORE creating an account.

You can install this free chrome extension that will show you everyone's default trust score.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bpiporg-chrome-extension/gnpadhillpjighiahdbjbjgihpilakda

[HiDevin]

I know this has been discussed before but I think a newbie user who found this forum on a Google search needs to be able to see a users trust BEFORE creating an account.

You can install this free chrome extension that will show you everyone's default trust score.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bpiporg-chrome-extension/gnpadhillpjighiahdbjbjgihpilakda

Yeah but I doubt new people who comes to the forums is going to have that extension installed to see scammers in the marketplace section

[OgNasty]

I agree that viewing trust when not logged in could be beneficial.  I see the other side of the coin also.  Users should be discouraged from using multiple accounts any way possible in my opinion.  This means annoying captchas and losing benefits when not logged in. 

Viewing bitcointalk.org trust is a privilege, not a right (currently).  If people want the privilege of viewing trust, all they have to do is sign up for a free account.  Seems reasonable.

[tim-bc]

I don't know why, but I was under the impression that the decision to disallow guests from viewing feedback had something to do with cases where an employer or something is doing a google search on a potential employee, and ends up here, "Biggest Shitboi on forum, Skemmd my Grandmum for 5,000 BTC", "Guy sucks, l0l" etc feedback.

It seems to me that you could still display everyone's DT score on their posts without actually allowing access to each individual's trust page.

[sandy-is-fine]

I agree that viewing trust when not logged in could be beneficial.  I see the other side of the coin also.  Users should be discouraged from using multiple accounts any way possible in my opinion.  This means annoying captchas and losing benefits when not logged in.  

Viewing bitcointalk.org trust is a privilege, not a right (currently).  If people want the privilege of viewing trust, all they have to do is sign up for a free account.  Seems reasonable.

I agree but the thing is new users who end up here from for ex. Google searches don't know that is the case so maybe a banner that ONLY SHOWS to unregistered forum viewers that says something like:


"SIGN UP FOR A FREE ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SEE USERS TRUST RATINGS.  BE SAFE AND DON'T SEND ANYONE BTC WITHOUT THIS FREE BENEFIT"

That would avoid having to show the trust ratings plus maybe get more registered users.  

[Vod]

I agree but the thing is new users who end up here from for ex. Google searches don't know that is the case so maybe a banner that ONLY SHOWS to unregistered forum viewers that says something like:


"SIGN UP FOR A FREE ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SEE USERS TRUST RATINGS.  BE SAFE AND DON'T SEND ANYONE BTC WITHOUT THIS FREE BENEFIT"

That would avoid having to show the trust ratings plus maybe get more registered users.  

If we are dealing with the lower end of the intelligence scale, a warning should be of consequence, not of proper procedure.

How about:
"DO NOT EXPRESS GULLIBILITY (SUCH AS RELIGION) OR YOU WILL BE TARGETED BY SCAMMERS AND LOSE YOUR COINS"

[sandy-is-fine]

I agree but the thing is new users who end up here from for ex. Google searches don't know that is the case so maybe a banner that ONLY SHOWS to unregistered forum viewers that says something like:


"SIGN UP FOR A FREE ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SEE USERS TRUST RATINGS.  BE SAFE AND DON'T SEND ANYONE BTC WITHOUT THIS FREE BENEFIT"

That would avoid having to show the trust ratings plus maybe get more registered users.  

If we are dealing with the lower end of the intelligence scale, a warning should be of consequence, not of proper procedure.

How about:
"DO NOT EXPRESS GULLIBILITY (SUCH AS RELIGION) OR YOU WILL BE TARGETED BY SCAMMERS AND LOSE YOUR COINS"

LOL  I'm trying to be part of the SOLUTION and not the problem.   What's even stranger is that I just noticed MERIT does appear when NOT logged in but TRUST (or lack of same) DOES NOT.  So when you get a user like this that has purchased (or hacked) an account the appearance is really wrong.  At least don't show BOTH MERIT AND TRUST!   (Redactions to not really protect the not very innocent)

[TryNinja]

-snip-

Merit is the same for everyone. Trust isn’t due to trust lists. That’s why one is shown and the othet isn’t. If a user doesn’t know how trust works (he is just someone passing by the forum and doesn’t have an account), he surely doesn’t know what merit is. So, it doens’t matter.

[SaltySpitoon]

Yes, but many of these people now invite you to discuss the trade offsite like at telegram or discord.

Exactly.  They either use SELLY or one of those other "auto-buy" sites or send you to Telegram or whatever  anyway.  Especially as a Newbie communicating on here it is very slow due to posting limits. They are going to scam you whether or not you see the trust but why be part of the problem, why not try and lessen it?

Are the people who find an unfamiliar site, and then buy things using a non refundable payment method from a stranger not also the same people who would already be broke due to Nigerian prince email scams?

I'm sort of neutral on the subject matter so I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but it seems like if someone is, we'll say gullible, to the point where they are willing to trade with someone here before signing up and learning how things work. Is there really anything you can do for them? I'm totally not against putting in safety nets for people who may be able to benefit from using them, but at a certain extent, I argue that its not worth putting in the effort, because its either going to be the Hot Russian Model that needs a plane ticket to come visit you, or the sketchy guy with autobuy links.

[sandy-is-fine]

-snip-

Merit is the same for everyone. Trust isn’t due to trust lists. That’s why one is shown and the othet isn’t. If a user doesn’t know how trust works (he is jus someone passing by the forum and doesn’t have an account), he surely doesn’t know what merit is. So, it doens’t matter.

My point is seeing the word "MERIT" which is generally defined and understood by the vast majority of people as being "good" (see def below) when showing on a scammers name as shown above without the bad trust makes one think the person is worthy of TRUST (not forum trust but personal trust) when they are not.  When not logged in a scammer can be made to look like they are good by seemingly been given "merit" by someone or some thing on the forum.  My point was either both or none should be visible to anyone not logged in.

The definition of MERIT is:
The quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
Deserve or be worthy of (something, especially reward, punishment, or attention).
synonyms: excellence, goodness, standard, quality, level, grade, high quality, caliber, worth, good, credit, eminence, worthiness, value, virtue, distinction, account, deservingness, meritoriousness,
deserve, earn, be deserving of, warrant, rate, justify, be worthy of, be worth, be entitled to, have a right to, have a claim to/on, be qualified for

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&q=define+merit

[suchmoon]

Is there really anything you can do for them?

The trust ratings already exist, it's just a matter of showing them and more information is better in this context.

It almost sounds negligent to have potentially important information and keep it hidden.

[sandy-is-fine]

Are the people who find an unfamiliar site, and then buy things using a non refundable payment method from a stranger not also the same people who would already be broke due to Nigerian prince email scams?

I'm sort of neutral on the subject matter so I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but it seems like if someone is, we'll say gullible, to the point where they are willing to trade with someone here before signing up and learning how things work. Is there really anything you can do for them? I'm totally not against putting in safety nets for people who may be able to benefit from using them, but at a certain extent, I argue that its not worth putting in the effort, because its either going to be the Hot Russian Model that needs a plane ticket to come visit you, or the sketchy guy with autobuy links.

On your first question, I firmly believe the answer is absolutely NO.  People starting out in the BTC world are often in a totally strange new world but are way above the gullibility of the Nigerian email scam folks.

On your next comment I mostly agree but I have always believed that if it isn't a major undertaking some effort could be made to offer some modicum of protection to those who fall into this place. 

Generally speaking, many forums actually tag scammers as scammers and delete their threads while it isn't 100% effective it is better than ignoring them and becoming the "go to" place to run a scam in some cases for months or years without any kind of sanction.

[sandy-is-fine]

Is there really anything you can do for them?

The trust ratings already exist, it's just a matter of showing them and more information is better in this context.

It almost sounds negligent to have potentially important information and keep it hidden.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  WHAT S/HE SAID!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly what I have been trying to say but in many less words! 

[SaltySpitoon]

It really just seems like a personal problem to me. Would you trust someone on Reddit because they have good Karma, which is also a good thing? I kind of just live by the philosophy not to send money to strangers online, maybe I'm crazy.

The trust ratings already exist, it's just a matter of showing them and more information is better in this context.

It almost sounds negligent to have potentially important information and keep it hidden.

Its potentially important for members of the site, I agree. Say I wanted to use the name SaltySpitoon as an artists pseudonym as well as my handle here, and I was an active scam buster, and I was painted with all kinds of negative feedback from people I had picked fights with, I wouldn't want it viewable by anyone who didn't have a complete picture as a member here. If you don't have a complete picture of how the trust system works, I don't think you should have access to it one way or another.

On another note, aren't false positives just as likely as false negatives? If you aren't a member here, I could argue that you might not be aware of the practice of sock puppets leaving fake feedback. What if a new member sees positive trust from all of the scammers aliases?  

My main point is that having it not visible at all, is less harmful than having it visible and misleading.

*edit* Points to your own trust, Sandy, would you be fine with your relatives or potential employer reading the negative troll feedback left on your account if they did a google search for you? If they don't have any context about the Bitcoin forum, its probably far more negative from their perspective than the people who know to ignore it here.

[JusticeForYou]

I personally think most of the people who don't have an account here would come across bitcointalk through a simple google search and if the person comes through some real-life reference he is sure to create an account here and learn how the forum works. There is not much advantage in letting the non-logged users know what the trust rating of the person is, as they would just firstly not understand how it works or which are relevant feedbacks and which are not.

We can see multiple cases of trust abuse even if the trust is not shown as default it comes under untrusted feedback and any account could have a high number of fake or irrelevant untrusted feedbacks which would surely miss-lead any new user with no account if it's visible.

If a person is willing to trade on bitcointalk and would like to deal safely here should first create an account and understand how the trust works otherwise just a simple warning could work "Before trading with anyone please create a Bitcointalk account and check the feedbacks first" would be a good warning to all the users surfing without creating account.

[suchmoon]

Its potentially important for members of the site, I agree. Say I wanted to use the name SaltySpitoon as an artists pseudonym as well as my handle here, and I was an active scam buster, and I was painted with all kinds of negative feedback from people I had picked fights with, I wouldn't want it viewable by anyone who didn't have a complete picture as a member here. If you don't have a complete picture of how the trust system works, I don't think you should have access to it one way or another.

On another note, aren't false positives just as likely as false negatives? If you aren't a member here, I could argue that you might not be aware of the practice of sock puppets leaving fake feedback. What if a new member sees positive trust from all of the scammers aliases?  

My main point is that having it not visible at all, is less harmful than having it visible and misleading.

But does merely creating an account make one an expert in all of those intricacies of the trust system? Yet we're showing the trust ratings to total newbies AND we're imposing the DefaultTrust scoring on them. In fact even if newbie wanted to learn more about trust and DT - that info is not easy to find. That's also something that should be addressed both for registered users and for guests I think.

The Google issue can be mitigated to some extent by making the feedback pages non-indexable. So if someone merely googles your nick they won't see the derogatory info pop up directly in search results. They could still click through and see it but even today they could create an account and see it. Bigger fatter warning next to untrusted feedback could help. Perhaps don't show untrusted feedback to guests at all.

At any rate, since anybody can post any post or thread about you and it's unlikely to be deleted, Google can already pick up all sorts of negative stuff so I would disagree that making trust ratings public would be much of a difference. However I would like to have an option of a short rebuttal in the trust system, at least an ability to add a URL. So if someone accuses me of scamming I could say "Here is what really happened: <link>".

[Lauda]

Its potentially important for members of the site, I agree. Say I wanted to use the name SaltySpitoon as an artists pseudonym as well as my handle here, and I was an active scam buster, and I was painted with all kinds of negative feedback from people I had picked fights with, I wouldn't want it viewable by anyone who didn't have a complete picture as a member here. If you don't have a complete picture of how the trust system works, I don't think you should have access to it one way or another.

On another note, aren't false positives just as likely as false negatives? If you aren't a member here, I could argue that you might not be aware of the practice of sock puppets leaving fake feedback. What if a new member sees positive trust from all of the scammers aliases?  

My main point is that having it not visible at all, is less harmful than having it visible and misleading.

-snip-
The Google issue can be mitigated to some extent by making the feedback pages non-indexable. So if someone merely googles your nick they won't see the derogatory info pop up directly in search results. They could still click through and see it but even today they could create an account and see it. Bigger fatter warning next to untrusted feedback could help. Perhaps don't show untrusted feedback to guests at all.
-snip-

I don't see how this would be necessarily worse than fake accusation threads such as "<Username> is a pedo / pill abuser / etc". Those are already indexed by search engines and tend to show up first.

[EcuaMobi]

If people want the privilege of viewing trust, all they have to do is sign up for a free account.  Seems reasonable.

It is reasonable. But if the forum can show trust and avoid a few scams then it definitely should, especially considering guests don't even know they can have that privilege.

if someone is, we'll say gullible, to the point where they are willing to trade with someone here before signing up and learning how things work. Is there really anything you can do for them?

People don't need to be extremely gullible. They may not know bitcoin is not reversible or they could think Selly has some basic buyer's protection and can reverse the payment (like PayPal) if they're used to eBay for example. They do need to be naive but not stupid. If the forum can help those naive people then it should. Showing known scammers' profiles as red would certainly help them.

And, whatever the reason, this happens and users are being scammed by known scammers.
See some posts here for example. Users have been scammed and wished they knew about the trust system sooner:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3035620.msg48843643#msg48843643

Points to your own trust, Sandy, would you be fine with your relatives or potential employer reading the negative troll feedback left on your account if they did a google search for you? If they don't have any context about the Bitcoin forum, its probably far more negative from their perspective than the people who know to ignore it here.

It would make sense to show default trust, not every trust left by anyone. The forum could treat guests as newbies who don't have a custom trust list.


Anyway, theymos has already replied to this, as noted by actmyname, so I guess that's decided unless this current trust system fails and he implements the "force-custom-lists solution".

[sandy-is-fine]

--<clip>---

If a person is willing to trade on bitcointalk and would like to deal safely here should first create an account and understand how the trust works otherwise just a simple warning could work "Before trading with anyone please create a Bitcointalk account and check the feedbacks first" would be a good warning to all the users surfing without creating account.

+1 and exactly as I suggested a couple times in this thread.  I'm sure a "seen only by non-registered users rule" banner message could be created and put on as a banner message ESPECIALLY in the areas that involve sales of anything.

[SaltySpitoon]

Fair, I'll concede the point at least partially. If I'm not mistaken, you need to be logged in to view anything from the Reputation section. I don't believe google searches discover posts from the reputation board, but I could be wrong about that. That doesn't help against threads elsewhere though.

-snip-
The Google issue can be mitigated to some extent by making the feedback pages non-indexable. So if someone merely googles your nick they won't see the derogatory info pop up directly in search results. They could still click through and see it but even today they could create an account and see it. Bigger fatter warning next to untrusted feedback could help. Perhaps don't show untrusted feedback to guests at all.
-snip-

I don't see how this would be necessarily worse than fake accusation threads such as "<Username> is a pedo / pill abuser / etc". Those are already indexed by search engines and tend to show up first.

This is kind of what I was talking about. Any user who has been here for a week knows that there are users with feedback about them being pedos/pill abusers/ etc, and I dare to say that 99.9% of that feedback is false. Thats not to say that someone on Bitcointalk couldn't be fired or not hired in the first place because of claims like that. But I suppose if the information is out their regardless, allowing guests a consolidated place to view all claims probably isn't worse than having to scour the board looking for them.

[MadZ]

I don't know why, but I was under the impression that the decision to disallow guests from viewing feedback had something to do with cases where an employer or something is doing a google search on a potential employee, and ends up here, "Biggest Shitboi on forum, Skemmd my Grandmum for 5,000 BTC", "Guy sucks, l0l" etc feedback.

Again, I don't know if thats correct but something is telling me that was a consideration, though I don't have a source. The obvious hole that sticks out in my mind, is that there are only a handful of people here who used their real names, or have published their real names. I can't shake the suspicion that trust was only meant to be a factor in sections where it might possibly matter, and between members who are at risk of doing some sort of trade, at least partially for that reason. I don't think that conducting business with guest users was a consideration. How would you exchange PMs arranging a trade without an account?

Why not make it just show users' overall trust scores under their name in threads/posts, but keep individual profile pages the same as they are now. A guest would be able to see whether a seller has green trust, neutral trust, or red trust, but wouldn't be able to see each individual feedback until they make an account themselves.

[owlcatz]

This guy just got scammed $45 dollars because you can't see trust without being logged in.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5101897.msg49408123;topicseen#msg49408123

If people want the privilege of viewing trust, all they have to do is sign up for a free account.  Seems reasonable.

It is reasonable. But if the forum can show trust and avoid a few scams then it definitely should, especially considering guests don't even know they can have that privilege.

Yes, this here ^^^^^^^^^^

[tranthidung]

Lots of promising benefits. There are crypto investors, who simply visit the forum to get news/ updates/ information/ reports of projects they interested in. Those guys don't have need to communicate with forum community, projects' communities, and so on. However, they should see the trust points of core team's developers to have clearer and more general on what's going on with those projects.

I agree that viewing trust when not logged in could be beneficial.

[kingpin4321]

In the first place it would be wrong to be a guest and do deal with a user of the forum. If you are one that is security conscious you would join the forum first and even take time to understand it before any transcation

[mikeywith]

In the first place it would be wrong to be a guest and do deal with a user of the forum. If you are one that is security conscious you would join the forum first and even take time to understand it before any transcation

why all the hustle for buying a 10$ or 20$ digital item?

check this out > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4835324.0

now log-out and check it again.

when a search engine sends you to such a topic and you find an autobuy link , and whats worse is that in self-moderated threads, these scammers self vouch to themselves with a dozen of positive comments, delete all legit comments  , and without being able to see that red paint, everything seems 100% legit.

simply because guests do not know what self-moderated thread is, they see a topic that has been there for a year, only positive comments, everyone and their grandmother will trust that scammer.

[SaltySpitoon]

In the first place it would be wrong to be a guest and do deal with a user of the forum. If you are one that is security conscious you would join the forum first and even take time to understand it before any transcation

why all the hustle for buying a 10$ or 20$ digital item?

check this out > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4835324.0

now log-out and check it again.

when a search engine sends you to such a topic and you find an autobuy link , and whats worse is the in self-moderated threads, these scammers self vouch to themselves with a dozen of positive comments, delete all legit comments  , and without be able to see that red paint, everything seems 100% legit.

simply because guests do not know what self-moderated thread is, they see a topic that has been there for a year, only positive comments, everyone and their grandmother will trust that scammer.

I agree that guests should not do business with people on this site. If they choose to, its on them. I find it weird to be requesting features to benefit people who aren't members of this site. If you can't put in the effort to make an account, you take the risk of being scammed. Ah, I don't have an Ebay account, so I'll just contact the seller by email and try to take it off site. Also, I'll pay with Western Union, it'll be fine.

A half baked understanding of the feedback system is more harmful than no understanding of the feedback system. Its a tool that I believe could be more easily misunderstood than used properly if you don't have any prior knowledge about Bitcointalk or the ecosystem around here.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

I see where you are coming from, and I do agree with your points to an extent.

On the other hand, the forum obviously has a reputation as a good place to post these kind of scams, which is why we see so god damn many of them constantly popping up. I agree guests shouldn't be doing trades, but they fact is they are and we can't stop them unless we make more boards private, which I doubt very much is a route theymos would want to take. Making such a small change as showing Default Trust to guests would save some from being scammed, and if these were people who weren't going to make an account anyway, then I don't think their understanding of the trust system is really revelant beyond being able to read "Trade with extreme caution". In your eBay example, you can still see users' feedback ratings and read their individual feedbacks without an account.

None of this prevents them from making an account and learning more if they are interested/motivated to do so.

[mikeywith]

I agree that guests should not do business with people on this site. If they choose to, its on them.

same goes to member on the forum then, if they chose to conduct any business here, it's on them, so why bother tag scammers? let everybody try for themselves and take full responsibility of their actions.

unless you think it's okay for other people who are not members of the forum to get scammed then i do not see a reason why the feedback shouldn't be showing to everyone.

the feedback on the market place are pretty accurate, you can check them out yourself, i am someway active on that board and I know those feedback on most scammers are very-very accurate to say the least, and i see no point why shouldn't guests enjoy the benefit of these accurate feedback.

I do agree with your statement

I agree that guests should not do business with people on this site

 it's 100% right

but it does not mean we should not  protect them, i can understand why someone couldn't be bothered about protecting those people, but i can't seem to understand why would someone  disagree on protecting other people's money from scammers.

[posi]

I have some suggestion which I believe will somehow increase the safety and credibility of this forum user and people who are not. I think it will be nice if guest users can see the trust and reputable of this forum users because a guest user of this forum was scammed acouple of days back. Here is the link to the thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5101897.msg49408386#msg49408386

[SaltySpitoon]

The system where people fend for themselves is in place here. I'd hope that no one fully relies on the numerical scored of the feedback system. Its a tool to help you make your own informed decision, which relies on your own ability to wade through noise, and validate the legitimacy of any positive or negative claims someone makes against another. Seeing a number is not useful in the slightest, and I'd argue incredibly misleading and dangerous to someone who makes any assumptions about the feedback system.

The act of tagging scammers is an act by members to leave notes to other members that a user is potentially untrustworthy. It is then up for the member who originally wished to do business with the alleged scammer to read through any relevant proof and claims, and make their own informed decision whether to trade with that person. If you see a red -1 and don't look any further, you could be missing out on a trade because of a difference of political view between two members, or a petty fight. In reverse, you see someone with a green +1 and immediately they are vetted by the site, and you have no qualms with throwing money at them.

In this case, I feel that showing guests feedback scores is irresponsible and more harmful than not. If they don't want to take the time to register, I hope they get a valuable lesson for the $10 they lose, and hopefully its just that. Everyone born in the last 60 years knows what a shady internet deal is. Leave it to their intuition rather than interfering with that.

[o_e_l_e_o]

In this case, I feel that showing guests feedback scores is irresponsible and more harmful than not.

Fair point. Would you at least concede that we should be allowing guests to see individual trust pages and ratings, even if they don't see a calculated score? Whether those ratings are broken down in to "trusted" and "untrusted" based on DT, or whether they are all just placed under "untrusted", is another argument.

[suchmoon]

In this case, I feel that showing guests feedback scores is irresponsible and more harmful than not. If they don't want to take the time to register, I hope they get a valuable lesson for the $10 they lose, and hopefully its just that. Everyone born in the last 60 years knows what a shady internet deal is. Leave it to their intuition rather than interfering with that.

The problem is that guests who land in scam threads from Google have no idea that trust ratings exist and that you have to register to see them. I disagree that showing scores would be harmful. It would at least give them an indication that something like that exists and they would be able to access more information about the seller. How they use or misuse that information is another story, but that's no different from a freshly-registered newbie so again, I don't see how it's harmful to show the score to guests if we're showing it to newbies.

Let them fend for themselves but let's not force them to do so blindfolded with hands tied behind their backs.

[mikeywith]

I think you are really underestimating the accuracy of the trust system, have a look at this > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3486346.0

this is a list of confirmed scammers , i am willing to bet a horse on each of them, and am sure most active members on the market place board would be willing to do the same , we as members here, know those guys are scammers, we tag them and we don't deal with them. 99% of those feedback are accurate.

those scammers know for sure that nobody on the forum would send them money first, yet every single day they bump their old threads that have a dozen of fake reviews, and many guests keep falling for them everyday and the reason does not matter ( greed, stupidity , low IQ or even bad luck) the results matter.

and even if you were to argue about my figures,  i still think that protecting a single person  hard-earned 10$ is worth the effort, not everybody is as intelligent as need be.

you can also have a look at this random screenshot of mine.




11 out of 13 topics on the first page of digital goods are scammers, this is almost 90% scam . i am willing to be held responsible for my claims, every topic on this screenshot is made by a confirmed scammer except for pinned topic and the last 2 topics (neutral)

and this 1st page doesn't look much different at any given time.

I am not trying to force my logic here, but i am pretty sure there is a major point which you don't seem to understand, while i agree with you that many ratings are B.S based on nothing related to trading ( which is why i have always opposed giving such ratting that are not directly related to trade based stuff) The main point that you need to realize that the trust system on the market place is tremendously accurate, it's the result of members including myself who have been observing those scammers for YEARS and all the ratings are based on trading facts and not some meaningless feedback which is based on political b.s or trolling, while there may be a few members who participate there being tagged for a silly reason, i am pretty sure that the majority of tagged frequent users there (over 99%) are scammers.


these are FACTS , if you wish , you can deny them, but if you think that they can be even a little accurate then i see no reason why wouldn't you want them to be shared with other poor souls who get scammed on a daily bases by those scammers.

[SaltySpitoon]

In this case, I feel that showing guests feedback scores is irresponsible and more harmful than not.

Fair point. Would you at least concede that we should be allowing guests to see individual trust pages and ratings, even if they don't see a calculated score? Whether those ratings are broken down in to "trusted" and "untrusted" based on DT, or whether they are all just placed under "untrusted", is another argument.

I would agree with that. I've been critical of the calculated "trustworthiness" score since the beginning, but because there was plenty of information about it posted, people here were free to interpret it as they liked, so it didn't hit my radar to the same extent as showing this score to people who are blind going into it.

The problem is that guests who land in scam threads from Google have no idea that trust ratings exist and that you have to register to see them. I disagree that showing scores would be harmful. It would at least give them an indication that something like that exists and they would be able to access more information about the seller. How they use or misuse that information is another story, but that's no different from a freshly-registered newbie so again, I don't see how it's harmful to show the score to guests if we're showing it to newbies.

Let them fend for themselves but let's not force them to do so blindfolded with hands tied behind their backs.

As a newbie, if you see a green number that was earned because you had someones back in a fight in Meta, does that not have the same weight as a green number earned from a valid trade of a related item? Or how about a green number earned from a 0.005 BTC sale, and now you are doing a 0.1 BTC trade? Your first instinct as a person who has been around on the internet during the era of Craigslist scams and all sorts of others, is to not trade someone unless you have that gut feeling that tells you that you will be safe.

By forum community consensus, it is fine to give someone negative feedback for account selling. Thats fine, as a member of this forum, I understand and accept the rationale, but does that apply to someone who is not a member of the forum? People give each other positive feedback for being helpful at scambusting, again in the context of the forums thats fine, but at least to me, that doesn't register as anything noteworthy when deciding if someone is trustworthy with money I'm about to send them. The best most trustworthy account seller, someone that a guest user might be here looking for, might have far more negative trust than the guy who hasn't been caught yet. Outside of the contexts of the forum feedback system rules, a lot of things are at the very best misleading. By not giving people the crutch of misleading numbers, they trade with people using the same rules they learned to avoid internet scams. If you give people a number that says, yeah this guy is safe to trade with, its like giving them a stick with notches in it and no further explanation. Why do I trust a guy who is always friendly and answered my mining questions with my BTC?

I think you are really underestimating the accuracy of the trust system, have a look at this > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3486346.0

I have zero faith in the trust system if you have no other information available. I've been active in the marketplace here since 2012, and involved in the trust system since its creation. I'm not being a jerk about it because I have something against the systems in place, I just don't think its the right tool for the job. We are trying to drive a nail with a wrench. The number of people's feedback that I'd trust here at face value I could count with one hand. Thats not to say I don't value a lot of member's opinions, its just that I'd have to read why trust is given and what support is given before considering it.

i still think that protecting a single person  hard-earned 10$ is worth the effort, not everybody is as intelligent as need be.

A $10 life lesson isn't a very expensive one. I hate to say that people deserve to be scammed, but sometimes a small mistake like that is worth far more than you'd think when a similar situation comes up with higher stakes.

11 out of 13 topics on the first page of digital goods are scammers, this is almost 90% scam . i am willing to be held responsible for my claims, every topic on this screenshot is made by a confirmed scammer except for pinned topic and the last 2 topics (neutral)

And why are those threads not moderated and removed? One reason is because the most dangerous thing is telling people that scams don't happen, and then they get scammed when they let their guards down by the ones that slip through the cracks. Give guest users a half functional tool, and there is more potential for damage. See a green +1, and maybe the $10 that they are willing to gamble with despite alarm bells going off becomes $100.

these are FACTS , if you wish , you can deny them, but if you think that they can be even a little accurate then i see no reason why wouldn't you want them to be shared with other poor souls who get scammed on a daily bases by those scammers.

Again, I disagree, as long as feedback that isn't solely related to trading its value as a trading tool is not definitive, you need to read each case and judge for yourself.

[mikeywith]

you need to read each case and judge for yourself.

Exactly, then allow guests to read and judge for themselves.

[SaltySpitoon]

you need to read each case and judge for yourself.

Exactly, then allow guests to read and judge for themselves.

That isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about whether they see someones +1, +10, -5 trade with caution, or nothing at all. A +1 for "helping me with my homework" is worth less than a +1 for "completed successful deal for 1 BTC" but when going in blind, they are the same.

my whimsical example:

A fella walks into your hardware store and says, I've never done any sort of work in fabrication, and can't handle any tools, but I've decided to build a house. What tool would you recommend? You hand him a saw. He may be able to cut the timbers and pound nails in with the handle, it might keep him out of the rain for a bit, but when the house falls down, it'd sure be better to be in the rain than under a collapsed house.

I'm not against helping guests, I am however not for making it worse by giving them half of the required tools to help or hurt themselves with. I'd rather they hurt themselves all on their own and learn from it if they are so determined to do so, or realize that they don't have a full set of tools, so do some research into what they need.

To evaluate feedback left, you need to be a member here. Without evaluating feedback, its useless and potentially harmful. The solution is to become a member here. If you don't want to become a member here, my argument is that you are better off without potentially misleading information, and we begin around the circle again.


If we really must come to some solution, as I said, I'd be in support of a custom trust list with no separation between Trusted and Untrusted feedback, no Red/Green or numbers involved. Just a list of feedback that would still require someone to investigate reference links, determine credibility of sources, etc.

[mikeywith]

A fella walks into your hardware store and says, I've never done any sort of work in fabrication, and can't handle any tools, but I've decided to build a house. What tool would you recommend? You hand him a saw. He may be able to cut the timbers and pound nails in with the handle, it might keep him out of the rain for a bit, but when the house falls down, it'd sure be better to be in the rain than under a collapsed house.

what we asking for is more like selling him a grow tent rather than asking to him to stay under the rain until he learns how to build a house.

this whole argument goes down to the accuracy of the feedback on the most active members and scammers on the market place,  as i mentioned earlier, the feedback on the market place is very accurate and mainly only based on trade related matters and the results and experience of other members, yet you want guests to reinvent the wheel rather than making use of data that has been worked on for years.

anyhow, this is like beating a dead horse, let's just agree to disagree and call it a day.

[EcuaMobi]

you need to read each case and judge for yourself.

Exactly, then allow guests to read and judge for themselves.

That isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about whether they see someones +1, +10, -5 trade with caution, or nothing at all. A +1 for "helping me with my homework" is worth less than a +1 for "completed successful deal for 1 BTC" but when going in blind, they are the same.

my whimsical example:

A fella walks into your hardware store and says, I've never done any sort of work in fabrication, and can't handle any tools, but I've decided to build a house. What tool would you recommend? You hand him a saw. He may be able to cut the timbers and pound nails in with the handle, it might keep him out of the rain for a bit, but when the house falls down, it'd sure be better to be in the rain than under a collapsed house.

So you're afraid users with positive trust will start scamming guests because those guests see them as green and therefore trusted?
How many times do you think that can happen? 1? 2? After that there will be a scam accusation and they will be red. Every guest will see them as red and it will be nearly impossible for that ex-green member to scam again with that account.

Now, if we don't show anything. How many times can a known scammer scam? At least tens of times. So what's the better option?

There's also a third option: shown only negative trust to guests and not the positive. That would be enough to stop most known scammers.

To evaluate feedback left, you need to be a member here. Without evaluating feedback, its useless and potentially harmful. The solution is to become a member here. If you don't want to become a member here, my argument is that you are better off without potentially misleading information, and we begin around the circle again.

Why do you think the simple act of registering makes a newbie able to understand the trust system, something he didn't understand at all a minute before when he was a guest?
Why do you want to show trust to brand new users and not guests?

If we really must come to some solution, as I said, I'd be in support of a custom trust list with no separation between Trusted and Untrusted feedback, no Red/Green or numbers involved. Just a list of feedback that would still require someone to investigate reference links, determine credibility of sources, etc.

So a known scammer creates several other accounts that leave positive trust to themselves and negative trust to every "scam hunter"?
Then guests would have no idea whom to trust and no good would be made. You can't shown trust left by scammers to users who don't understand the trust system.


If your main argument against this idea is you don't want guests to see as green/trusted any users then let's just show to them negative trust left by DT.

[suchmoon]

As a newbie, if you see a green number that was earned because you had someones back in a fight in Meta, does that not have the same weight as a green number earned from a valid trade of a related item?

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm simply saying that there the difference between a guest and a freshly-registered newbie is so negligible in terms of how much they know about the inner workings of the forum that it doesn't make sense to show the ratings to one but not to the other. Should we hide ratings from lower-ranked accounts as well? Until they're deemed sufficiently knowledgeable about the trust system? Perhaps all scores should be replaced with a simple link to trust feedback, unless you have a custom list in which case you can see the score the way it is displayed now.

I'm ok with tweaks to make the system more useful for everyone, including guests. I still don't see a good reason to hide potentially helpful trust ratings that already exist, and expect guests to figure out that they need to register to access them. If we're expecting them to be Craigslist-savvy then surely they can separate wheat from chaff in those ratings.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I've been thinking on SaltySpitoon's point of not giving guests half the required tools, and of them not fully understanding the trust system, and the more I think about it, the more I think it would be a worse idea to show guests only trust ratings without a trust score.

The reason these scammers don't have loads of positive feedback is because there is no reason for them to - their target audience isn't people who can see their trust, but the guests who can't. If we start displaying trust ratings to guests, I would bet a large proportion of my bitcoin holdings that these scammers' trust pages would quickly fill up with rating upon rating from alt accounts and sock puppets. As SaltySpitoon points out, guests don't understand the trust system - they don't understand the difference between trusted and untrusted feedback, and they certainly don't know who is a "reputable" user and who isn't. If they see an account with 1 negative trust but 20 positive trust, they are going to have a favorable view of that account. They won't understand that 1 negative rating from hilariousandco (for example) is probably more accurate than 20 ratings from newbie accounts. They will need some kind of system to help guide them in assessing feedback, and trusted/untrusted and the resulting score is the way to do that.

I can however understand SS's arguments for not showing guests trust at all, and so I think this should be an all or nothing thing. I would still favor the "all" option. Showing them bits of the trust system will do more harm than good.

[SaltySpitoon]

A fella walks into your hardware store and says, I've never done any sort of work in fabrication, and can't handle any tools, but I've decided to build a house. What tool would you recommend? You hand him a saw. He may be able to cut the timbers and pound nails in with the handle, it might keep him out of the rain for a bit, but when the house falls down, it'd sure be better to be in the rain than under a collapsed house.

what we asking for is more like selling him a grow tent rather than asking to him to stay under the rain until he learns how to build a house.

this whole argument goes down to the accuracy of the feedback on the most active members and scammers on the market place,  as i mentioned earlier, the feedback on the market place is very accurate and mainly only based on trade related matters and the results and experience of other members, yet you want guests to reinvent the wheel rather than making use of data that has been worked on for years.

anyhow, this is like beating a dead horse, let's just agree to disagree and call it a day.

Our main difference in opinion is our perceived amount of signal to noise. You believe the marketplace section provides the majority of feedback, it is accurate, and based on trades. I however believe that the majority of feedback is related to non trade related matters. Thats not to say that someone who gets a negative for being a jerk isn't less trustworthy in a trade because of their behavior and how that could relate to dealing with another person during a transaction, but I believe that factors other than, This guy and I traded and he came through, need additional information to be properly weighted.

I have no issue with us having a difference of opinion. At the end of the day we don't need to convince each other, what matters is that both of our opinions are aired to aid others to come to their own decisions.

I'm simply saying that there the difference between a guest and a freshly-registered newbie is so negligible in terms of how much they know about the inner workings of the forum that it doesn't make sense to show the ratings to one but not to the other.

I absolutely agree with you there, but as a registered member you have access to the reputation board and can actually read 50% of the links left in valid feedback. I'm not sure if we are crossing two issues currently. The first issue in this thread was whether all trust information should be displayed. The issue that I believe we are on now, is whether or not just the number score should be displayed.

So you're afraid users with positive trust will start scamming guests because those guests see them as green and therefore trusted?
How many times do you think that can happen? 1? 2? After that there will be a scam accusation and they will be red. Every guest will see them as red and it will be nearly impossible for that ex-green member to scam again with that account.

Now, if we don't show anything. How many times can a known scammer scam? At least tens of times. So what's the better option?

There's also a third option: shown only negative trust to guests and not the positive. That would be enough to stop most known scammers.

I can go through my PMs from the past year (12 months) and easily point out 30-50 people who wanted to do minuscule trades with me, most likely in order to get + green feedback. Their purposes for establishing a trade history could certainly be honest, but it isn't that uncommon of an issue. I got dragged into trust farming complaints where people on DT had left feedback for people over microtransactions, and it was debated whether it was OK to give them feedback over a 30 cent transaction, when it meant giving them a +5 green number on their feedback. The general consensus was that its fine, because the numbers are meaningless, and you should always read the individual transaction details rather than relying on numbers. If you make that +5 no longer meaningless by displaying it to guests, it becomes a problem.

Trust farming isn't a worthwhile endeavor at the moment, but it could easily be made into one. Its not done, because its not profitable as members here can weigh the value of feedback. You don't trust someone with $100 because they handled $1 in the past. But, show only the +1 from a trade and not the rest, and that is no longer the case.



On a side note, since we seem to be talking about the digital goods section where this is the greatest issue, there is a warning stickied post from our very own EcuaMobi. So the excuse of not knowing better when coming here as a guest kind of goes flying out the window.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3035620.0


As an exercise, be honest with yourself and pick a few people. View their trusted/untrusted feedback, and see how much of it you'd value personally if deciding to trade with that person. There is plenty of helpful info in there, but you have to be able to sort it.

[suchmoon]

I'm simply saying that there the difference between a guest and a freshly-registered newbie is so negligible in terms of how much they know about the inner workings of the forum that it doesn't make sense to show the ratings to one but not to the other.

I absolutely agree with you there, but as a registered member you have access to the reputation board and can actually read 50% of the links left in valid feedback.

Guests can see Reputation too. Investigations (dox) board is off-limits but it's also not available to Newbies so no difference here.

I'm not sure if we are crossing two issues currently. The first issue in this thread was whether all trust information should be displayed. The issue that I believe we are on now, is whether or not just the number score should be displayed.

We probably are, sorry if I mixed it up here. I'm with o_e_l_e_o on this. It should all be available to guests just like it is available to newbies. If we want to add some extra verbiage to green scores to help guests/newbies/etc understand that dealing with "green" (or "non-red") users is not a guarantee of success - I'm fine with that.

[EcuaMobi]

I can go through my PMs from the past year (12 months) and easily point out 30-50 people who wanted to do minuscule trades with me, most likely in order to get + green feedback. Their purposes for establishing a trade history could certainly be honest, but it isn't that uncommon of an issue. I got dragged into trust farming complaints where people on DT had left feedback for people over microtransactions, and it was debated whether it was OK to give them feedback over a 30 cent transaction, when it meant giving them a +5 green number on their feedback. The general consensus was that its fine, because the numbers are meaningless, and you should always read the individual transaction details rather than relying on numbers. If you make that +5 no longer meaningless by displaying it to guests, it becomes a problem.

Trust farming isn't a worthwhile endeavor at the moment, but it could easily be made into one. Its not done, because its not profitable as members here can weigh the value of feedback. You don't trust someone with $100 because they handled $1 in the past. But, show only the +1 from a trade and not the rest, and that is no longer the case.

So, again, your only (or at least main) argument against this idea is that you don't want green trust to be seen by guests. You seem to have missed most of my previous post.
We can then shown only negative trust left by DT.

A lot of scammers have been identified. The issue here is we don't give that information to guests, so those known scammers keep scamming. I only want to stop that, I just want make things as difficult as possible for known scammers. I don't care if positive trust is shown.

On a side note, since we seem to be talking about the digital goods section where this is the greatest issue, there is a warning stickied post from our very own EcuaMobi. So the excuse of not knowing better when coming here as a guest kind of goes flying out the window.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3035620.0

Yes. I tried to do something at least. And it has helped. That's actually proof something must be done as that little bit has helped.
Now, a lot of users just search something on Google, are redirected to a scammer's posts and from there to an auto-buy site, where they are scammed.

Seeing that scammer with red trust would help a lot, much more than my sticky post which is not seen by a lot of people before being scammed.
That's why there are a lot of "I wish I read this thread sooner" posts on that very same thread you linked.

As an exercise, be honest with yourself and pick a few people. View their trusted/untrusted feedback, and see how much of it you'd value personally if deciding to trade with that person. There is plenty of helpful info in there, but you have to be able to sort it.

It will depend on whose profile I choose and, especially, trust left by whom. If I choose every trust then probably most are useless. If I choose feedback left by DT then most (but obviously not everything) will be helpful. If I choose trust based on my own list then even more is helpful for me, but guests and brand new users don't have that option. So we can use the second best option for them: DT.

[mikeywith]

here is a real life example of how showing trust to guest could have saved a poor soul > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121760.new#new

[UserU]

here is a real life example of how showing trust to guest could have saved a poor soul > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121760.new#new

Sucks to be him. I agree that it should be made visible to guests. For most newbies, why register when the contact details are right then and there, without realizing the Trust system is in place for a good reason.

[The Cryptovator]

here is a real life example of how showing trust to guest could have saved a poor soul > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121760.new#new

Exactly, I have replied there about it. This isn't just single case, I have seen many more same case. Due trust visibility guests are getting scam. Or sometimes people's lazy to login. That's why I think its reasonable to view trust rating even we are not login. Perhaps lot of newbies or guest would save their money from scammers. Also this suggestion made by multiple users. Hope admin will implement trust view for all users including guest.

[tbct_mt2]

Exactly, I have replied there about it. This isn't just single case, I have seen many more same case. Due trust visibility guests are getting scam. Or sometimes people's lazy to login. That's why I think its reasonable to view trust rating even we are not login. Perhaps lot of newbies or guest would save their money from scammers. Also this suggestion made by multiple users. Hope admin will implement trust view for all users including guest.

Especially, investors who don't have intention to write here, even don't create account.
They simply visit the forum, ANN topics, read and move to other places, like Github, Discord, Telegram, Website to get more details or get help.
So, the feature to be able to view trust or even merit transaction are good.
If they won't be integrated here, they should be integrated in the coming Epochtalk.

[petahasher]

New/un-registered users are most likely to be unaware of the different types of scams, taking away trust ratings from un-registered users is illogical. Bump

[digitalasset21cent]

I agree that viewing trust when not logged in could be beneficial.

If the new function that allows guests to view Trust without requirements to log in, I think the forum should have a same new function which allows guests to view merit history without requirements to log in.
I agree that guests sometimes don't care about merit, merit system, and merit history. They even don't know what is merit, what is merit system, and their roles in our forum. However, for real users in the forum, sometimes we are in beds, or out of connections to laptops or desktop computers, and we hesitate to log in accounts via mobile devices due to security reasons. In such cases, having rights to view merit history to read and learn from merited topics/ posts   have lots of meanings and be very helpful.

[marcotheminer]

New/un-registered users are most likely to be unaware of the different types of scams, taking away trust ratings from un-registered users is illogical. Bump

It's logical. If new users are browsing only, then whether or not a user is trusted on the forum isn't important. Guest users should use some common sense - not be influenced by an already skewed system of "reputation". If a guest users wants to deal with someone, they will very likely have to make an account, and will then see the trust score of that person.

[sandy-is-fine]

New/un-registered users are most likely to be unaware of the different types of scams, taking away trust ratings from un-registered users is illogical. Bump

If a guest users wants to deal with someone, they will very likely have to make an account, and will then see the trust score of that person.

That's not true since MOST of the scam sales are done off-site via Telegram, Selly and all the rest.  These folks have no reason to create an account UNTIL THEY GET SCAMMED.

Look at this OP:  "text me"  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5131277.0
Or this: "go to my scam website"  : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5133271.0
or this "go to my selly site" : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5129582.0
or "shoppy" site"  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118213.0
or "telegram"  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5112116.0

ALL require no need to sign up and be able to see any "trust"   and there are hundreds like it just over the last 3 or 4 days.  This place is known to allow (NOT moderate) scammers and it draws them like flies to shit.  While seeing rep isn't the full answer it certainly will help a little especially for thos who find these scammers via Google.

[theymos]

Logged-out users will now see a warning in trust-enabled sections if more DT members neg-trust the topic starter than positive-trust him.

This increases the responsibility of DT members not to give negative trust for stupid reasons, but only for things that cause you to believe that the person is a scammer.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Here's what it looks like:

[malevolent]

I'm positive this new measure will finally prevent many newbies from getting scammed. I'll know for sure if I'll start getting less PMs from Newbies who got conned before registering here, but it's a warning which is hard to miss so should be enough.

[mikeywith]

if more DT members neg-trust the topic starter than positive-trust him.

FINALLY ! although i was "hoping" to see something similar to what a logged in user would see, simply because scammers can still advertise their scam b.s in other people's topics, in fact if such behavior is increased - then it will be harder to spot them now than before.

but i can't complain much, that is a good start.



 

[Quickseller]

Here's what it looks like:

It might be a good idea to translate this to the local language when this is displayed in one of the local subs.

edit: it appears there are many marketplace subs in the local sections that do not have trust displayed.

[EcuaMobi]

if more DT members neg-trust the topic starter than positive-trust him.

FINALLY ! although i was "hoping" to see something similar to what a logged in user would see, simply because scammers can still advertise their scam b.s in other people's topic, in fact if such behaviour is increased then it will be harder to spot them now than before.

but i can't complain much, that is a good start.

That could happen but it's a much less serious problem. The main problem is when the scammers themselves create self-moderated and/or locked threads so nobody can post any warnings. This is practically solved with the announced change.
If a scammer posts on someone else's thread then the creator of that thread or anybody else can post a warning.

I too would prefer to see a warning next to every post made by a known scammer but I don't think it's a considerable issue.

[mikeywith]

If a scammer posts on someone else's thread then the creator of that thread or anybody else can post a warning.

ok maybe i should have explained my concern a bit more.


1- a scammer starts a locked thread selling gift cards.
2- uses a sockpuppet to comment saying he sells the same gift cards maybe at cheaper rate and posts his email/telegram contact.
3- another sockpuppet to vouch for the previous sockpuppet.
4- another sockpuppet to confirm the scam warning about OP and vouch for the first sockpuppet.

This is just one of many other scenarios, i am all about optimism but i can't ignore the fact this move alone won't help newbie visitors the way we expect.


you know scammers don't rest, it's pretty obvious that this will be their next strategy, so in order for us to keep fighting them, surfing topics alone will not be enough, we now have to dig into every reply.

@sandy has got a lot of work to do now since this was her idea  

[EcuaMobi]

1- a scammer starts a locked thread selling gift cards.
2- uses a sockpuppet to comment saying he sells the same gift cards maybe at cheaper rate and posts his email/telegram contact.
3- another sockpuppet to vouch for the previous sockpuppet.
4- another sockpuppet to confirm the scam warning about OP and vouch for the first sockpuppet.

I see. I hadn't thought of that.

The warning would help a little because newbies would at least know scammers are not banned (unlike most other forums) but a warning next to every post made by a scammer would be much better.
theymos, any chance you make this change?

[Quickseller]

If a scammer posts on someone else's thread then the creator of that thread or anybody else can post a warning.

ok maybe i should have explained my concern a bit more.


1- a scammer starts a locked thread selling gift cards.
2- uses a sockpuppet to comment saying he sells the same gift cards maybe at cheaper rate and posts his email/telegram contact.
3- another sockpuppet to vouch for the previous sockpuppet.
4- another sockpuppet to confirm the scam warning about OP and vouch for the first sockpuppet.

This is just one of many other scenarios, i am all about optimism but i can't ignore the fact this move alone won't help newbie visitors the way we expect.


you know scammers don't rest, it's pretty obvious that this will be their next strategy, so in order for us to keep fighting them, surfing topics alone will not be enough, we now have to dig into every reply.

@sandy has got a lot of work to do now since this was her idea 

What you describe would be off topic. You should report those posts and they should be deleted.

[EcuaMobi]

What you describe would be off topic. You should report those posts and they should be deleted.

Yes, but that only applies for that specific scenario. A small change could avoid that:

The scammer could ask who can sell gift cards, and then his alt could offer their services, posting an auto-buy link.
Other alts could accuse the OP of trying to scam (to justify the warning at the top of the thread) and vouch for the first alt.

All of this while the thread is locked and nobody else can intervene.

[sandy-is-fine]

Logged-out users will now see a warning in trust-enabled sections if more DT members neg-trust the topic starter than positive-trust him.

This increases the responsibility of DT members not to give negative trust for stupid reasons, but only for things that cause you to believe that the person is a scammer.

<DOING THE HAPPY DANCE!>

Good beginning, thank you.

<DUCKING>  Next step is to post that same warning on the same users even when the user is logged in! 

[ranman09]

If a scammer posts on someone else's thread then the creator of that thread or anybody else can post a warning.

ok maybe i should have explained my concern a bit more.


1- a scammer starts a locked thread selling gift cards.
2- uses a sockpuppet to comment saying he sells the same gift cards maybe at cheaper rate and posts his email/telegram contact.
3- another sockpuppet to vouch for the previous sockpuppet.
4- another sockpuppet to confirm the scam warning about OP and vouch for the first sockpuppet.

This is just one of many other scenarios, i am all about optimism but i can't ignore the fact this move alone won't help newbie visitors the way we expect.


you know scammers don't rest, it's pretty obvious that this will be their next strategy, so in order for us to keep fighting them, surfing topics alone will not be enough, we now have to dig into every reply.

@sandy has got a lot of work to do now since this was her idea  

I agree, some of the most valuable information and facts are in the comments. Sometimes the OP can't or simply forget to cover it. But, how a DT can track of these problems if there are lots of posts in a thread? Using a dislike like button on a post so other users can participate and help DTs? Oh or the existing report button.

Logged-out users will now see a warning in trust-enabled sections if more DT members neg-trust the topic starter than positive-trust him.

This increases the responsibility of DT members not to give negative trust for stupid reasons, but only for things that cause you to believe that the person is a scammer.

<DOING THE HAPPY DANCE!>

Good beginning, thank you.

<DUCKING>  Next step is to post that same warning on the same users even when the user is logged in! 

Yeah, I think this will be great also. But I think for now the negative user counter below the author's name is enough. Let's save that space for important announcements and for April 1.

[hugeblack]

Logged-out users will now see a warning in trust-enabled sections if more DT members neg-trust the topic starter than positive-trust him.

Will you add the warning about dealing with a newbie account, in case of circumventing by creating more accounts?
Will Trust rate be affected "somthnig like Trust: -35: -6 / +29"?

edit: it appears there are many marketplace subs in the local sections that do not have trust displayed.

Not only marketplace but all Altcoin sections "ANN, bounty & Airdrop"

[Steamtyme]

1- a scammer starts a locked thread selling gift cards.
2- uses a sockpuppet to comment saying he sells the same gift cards maybe at cheaper rate and posts his email/telegram contact.
3- another sockpuppet to vouch for the previous sockpuppet.
4- another sockpuppet to confirm the scam warning about OP and vouch for the first sockpuppet.

I see. I hadn't thought of that.

The warning would help a little because newbies would at least know scammers are not banned (unlike most other forums) but a warning next to every post made by a scammer would be much better.
theymos, any chance you make this change?

I could see that being to broad a stroke. I'm playing catch up here but the way it reads to me this takes in account all DT members. So until we see the changes that theymos might be expecting in the way feedback is being left I'm happy with topics being flagged for now. Ideally this should be enough for these guests to consider logging in as suggested or question everyone in the thread.

The bonus being they maybe become active in the community and login/register, this leads them to see feedback the same as everyone else, or they are reminded the be cautious on the internet.

Overall it is a good step that shouldn't have to much collateral damage; with the added benefit of hopefully curbing some of the failings people have in the way they leave feedback.

Good job sticking with your suggestion sandy-is-fine

[marlboroza]

Logged-out users will now see a warning in trust-enabled sections if more DT members neg-trust the topic starter than positive-trust him.

This increases the responsibility of DT members not to give negative trust for stupid reasons, but only for things that cause you to believe that the person is a scammer.

This is great addition to forum, it reminds me of big yellow warning sing at askgamblers  but to be honest you should change something. Just one example of user with -11 negative ratings and +11 positive (last positive feedback is from 2015):





There is no warning, perhaps not to count very old positive feedbacks, or to count only last few feedbacks?

[LoyceMobile]

The last example asks for a PM, so anyone interested would see his trust first.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think this is a great start to protecting guests from being scammed.

In relation to the already mentioned comments about these untrustworthy users posting in other users' threads or starting threads with sockpuppets who are not red trusted, I would agree that there should be a warning under individual accounts. I also think there should be a warning on individual users' profile pages, since any text or links they place in their signature/personal text/website are also viewable to guests.

[marlboroza]

The last example asks for a PM, so anyone interested would see his trust first.

That is why it is example, what if there was "contact me via telegram/email/other ways"? Never mind, it was just a thought, probably there are not many accounts who are tagged and warning won't show up.

[btcsmlcmnr]

The Warning is clear for Guest. However, I have a thought that maybe the forum should have more detailed guide on this issue, and the topic (if actually written by admin or some of staffs) should be pinned in the top of Beginners & Help. Maybe I am wrong at this point, and maybe that sort of guide topic is abundant.
I actually made my topic on this issue, what do you think about it?
Guests - Read Warnings on potential scam projects started by Neg Trust Users

[Quickseller]

What you describe would be off topic. You should report those posts and they should be deleted.

Yes, but that only applies for that specific scenario. A small change could avoid that:

The scammer could ask who can sell gift cards, and then his alt could offer their services, posting an auto-buy link.
Other alts could accuse the OP of trying to scam (to justify the warning at the top of the thread) and vouch for the first alt.

All of this while the thread is locked and nobody else can intervene.

The posts advertising, and vouching for the competitor (or "competitor" if they are alts) would be off topic, and should be deleted if reported.

I do agree there should be limits as to how frequently a thread can be unlocked. Perhaps one solution would be that once a thread has been locked twice in one month that if someone other than the OP makes a post in the thread, it can only be locked 4 hours after it was last unlocked.

There is no warning, perhaps not to count very old positive feedbacks, or to count only last few feedbacks?

I think the current algorithm is to prevent people like you from causing this warning being displayed for non-scammer reasons. 

[EcuaMobi]

What you describe would be off topic. You should report those posts and they should be deleted.

Yes, but that only applies for that specific scenario. A small change could avoid that:

The scammer could ask who can sell gift cards, and then his alt could offer their services, posting an auto-buy link.
Other alts could accuse the OP of trying to scam (to justify the warning at the top of the thread) and vouch for the first alt.

All of this while the thread is locked and nobody else can intervene.

The posts advertising, and vouching for the competitor (or "competitor" if they are alts) would be off topic, and should be deleted if reported.

That would be arguable at best, up to the moderator.
But it's not even too important as the OP could explicitly bump the thread as if he were asking for more providers.

[Quickseller]

What you describe would be off topic. You should report those posts and they should be deleted.

Yes, but that only applies for that specific scenario. A small change could avoid that:

The scammer could ask who can sell gift cards, and then his alt could offer their services, posting an auto-buy link.
Other alts could accuse the OP of trying to scam (to justify the warning at the top of the thread) and vouch for the first alt.

All of this while the thread is locked and nobody else can intervene.

The posts advertising, and vouching for the competitor (or "competitor" if they are alts) would be off topic, and should be deleted if reported.

That would be arguable at best, up to the moderator.
But it's not even too important as the OP could explicitly bump the thread as if he were asking for more providers.

Yes, someone creating a thread soliciting suggestions for services would get around the "off topic" problem.

My solution above regarding forcing threads to remain unlocked for a period of time would solve most of the problems regarding fake vouches.

You can also open a scam accusation, naming the forum handle, the URL of the service and/or contact information (eg telegram handle), so they will show up on google search results. 

[bolinao]

<DUCKING>  Next step is to post that same warning on the same users even when the user is logged in!  

This, the big red warning should be seen by registered members also, not just unregistered viewers.

So many registered newbies just don't see what's right in front of them and get scammed by a seller with plenty of red trust. If the same big warning was seen by registered members as seen by unregistered viewers  then that would go a long way to stop scamming.

[Element0815P2]

<DUCKING>  Next step is to post that same warning on the same users even when the user is logged in!  

This, the big red warning should be seen by registered members also, not just unregistered viewers.

So many registered newbies just don't see what's right in front of them and get scammed by a seller with plenty of red trust. If the same big warning was seen by registered members as seen by unregistered viewers  then that would go a long way to stop scamming.

Why is the fraudulent post not deleted by user "drimix"?

[Quickseller]

<DUCKING>  Next step is to post that same warning on the same users even when the user is logged in! 

This, the big red warning should be seen by registered members also, not just unregistered viewers.

So many registered newbies just don't see what's right in front of them and get scammed by a seller with plenty of red trust. If the same big warning was seen by registered members as seen by unregistered viewers  then that would go a long way to stop scamming.

Why is the fraudulent post not deleted by user "drimix"?

Because scans are not moderated here and because the mods cannot know for sure if something is a scam or not.

[Element0815P2]

...
Because scans are not moderated here and because the mods cannot know for sure if something is a scam or not.

Why does the mod not converse the project management before showing the damn message.
The mod lacks the responsibility in his Positoion.

[4fanbtc]

Hello,
Please here need help,
What that mean if one, two, or three friends decide to
Play child game of spammers without any prove only
They tell project scammer, did admin have to trust on them without any explaination

Here we have legal project
Based on legal company we are working
Transparent we have small community yes
But no one have problem with our project
We  write to moderator to stop this guys how play
On thread ,
Or he give any single prove that he was scammed
By project have 0 premine
Also we are ready to provide all documentations legal
And KYC if that needed.

But some bad reputation  RED ON THE FRONT of our thread without any single reason , really not good and not honest

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115081.200

Kind regards