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.

[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!